UKBA 35% increase in boardings!!!!

[AntarcticPilot]

If I pm you can you send me some - I've never had an elephant problem, but you've got me worried.
I disagree. I can't imagine many countries where the Customs officials don't have the right to board boats. I can't see how it causes you any great inconvenience unless it happens regularly (anyone ever been boarded more than twice in a year?). In fact I think we would rather enjoy being boarded. The kids would love it. From a tax payers point of view I'd like to see it reasonably focussed - so primarily people who have been abroad, or mixing with boats that have been abroad; or boats doing unusual things (like setting off at 3 am).

Of course, the right to disagree (amiably) is one of the great rights we wish to preserve!

My argument is simply that ANY random enforcement activity is wrong; it should always be intelligence led, and there should be a paper-trail to justify ANY boarding. This is true for our homes; why not for our boats - which are homes to some? So-called "random" stop and search under the "Suss" laws meant that certain people - notably young, black people - were victimized. We have evidence of this happening with these so-called "Random" boardings here - some people on this forum have reported being boarded repeatedly because "they didn't look like the kind of people to own a large yacht".

Elephant repellent is freely available to anyone who buys me a pint. It is guaranteed to work under UK marine conditions! Caveat Emptor

 

[timbartlett]

I can't imagine many countries where the Customs officials don't have the right to board boats. I can't see how it causes you any great inconvenience unless it happens regularly (anyone ever been boarded more than twice in a year?). In fact I think we would rather enjoy being boarded. The kids would love it. From a tax payers point of view I'd like to see it reasonably focussed - so primarily people who have been abroad, or mixing with boats that have been abroad; or boats doing unusual things (like setting off at 3 am).

What is "unusual" about boats going abroad or "setting off at 3am".

 

[fireball]

Why should Customs boarding be any different to stopping you in your Car? Both are a form of travel and Customs should have the right to investigate you if they have reason to believe you may be doing something illegal.
As for stopping only where there is intelligence to suggest something is amis - sorry - totally wrong - a Customs cutter would have to ring the tip off line itself everytime it saw a suspicious vessel....

As for random boardings ... totally random - I've never been boarded ... perhaps they just don't believe a Bav can make it across to another country ...

 

[Twister_Ken]

Why should Customs boarding be any different to stopping you in your Car? Both are a form of travel and Customs should have the right to investigate you if they have reason to believe you may be doing something illegal. ...

And what reason do they have to believe the innocent are doing something illegal? None. But they still leap aboard like storm troopers.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Why should Customs boarding be any different to stopping you in your Car? Both are a form of travel and Customs should have the right to investigate you if they have reason to believe you may be doing something illegal.
As for stopping only where there is intelligence to suggest something is amis - sorry - totally wrong - a Customs cutter would have to ring the tip off line itself everytime it saw a suspicious vessel....

As for random boardings ... totally random - I've never been boarded ... perhaps they just don't believe a Bav can make it across to another country ...

Exactly. They can't stop you "unless they have reason to believe you may be doing something illegal". That is NOT random, and I don't have a problem with it - provided their reasons are ones that they could explain to a judge. "Suspicion" isn't enough; they have to have a real reason. They can't pull you over just because they don't like the look of you, which is what "random" boarding - or whatever - really means.

 

[fergie_mac66]

If I pm you can you send me some - I've never had an elephant problem, but you've got me worried.
I disagree. I can't imagine many countries where the Customs officials don't have the right to board boats. I can't see how it causes you any great inconvenience unless it happens regularly (anyone ever been boarded more than twice in a year?). In fact I think we would rather enjoy being boarded. The kids would love it. From a tax payers point of view I'd like to see it reasonably focussed - so primarily people who have been abroad, or mixing with boats that have been abroad; or boats doing unusual things (like setting off at 3 am).

Agree completely, they can board me any time , and stop me anytime in my car or on foot!

In fact I am tempted to put a small sign up saying than can ! I have nothing to hide and if stopping people gets any guns, munitions or drugs even just 1 in a 100 that's a result, maybe even a life saved.
The thing is somebody carrying bad stuff is wanting not to look sus' and also is trying to not leave a trail . The guns, explosives are on our streets are round our corners possibly round every corner in every town in the land and most got here unknown to intelligence, police or customs, no doubt that there are one or two crooked solicitors, barristers, doctors etc carrying stuff in their bags that are completely happy and secure in the knowledge that the intelligence, police or customs wouldn,t dare to stop them and have a look in their bags.

 

[timbartlett]

I have nothing to hide and if stopping people gets any guns, munitions or drugs even just 1 in a 100 that's a result, maybe even a life saved.

How many times do we have to go round this particular buoy?

The big flaw in this argument is the word "if" -- as in "if stopping people gets any guns, munitions or drugs. There is no reason to believe that it does, and plenty of reasons to believe that it does not -- not least UKBA's continuing inability to produce any actual examples of a successful conviction arising purely from a random boarding.

There is a huge logic jump in the assumption that a bunch of wannabe paramilitaries jumping on board a yacht and terrorizing an innocent family crew has anything whatsoever to do with finding drugs or weapons. It's similar to the flawed logic that says we can cut down on landfill by only collecting your rubbish once a week, in that it sounds plausible, until you think about it. You don't reduce rubbish by not collecting it. Nor do you stop smuggling by harrassing innocent yachtsmen.

Random boardings are a rather stupid substitute for "intelligence": their chances of finding anything on the off chance are virtually nil... but what is certain is that they will alienate the very people who, with a minimal effort at building up some goodwill, could have been their eyes and ears around the coast.

The cynic in me wonders whether that is why they are doing it. By concentrating their efforts on random searches the black-clad bullies virtually guarantee that they will never stumble across anyone who is likely to stand up to them, and at the same time it reduces the risk that they might be provided with information that forces them to confront anyone who might fight back.

 

[RIB_imposter]

What is "unusual" about boats going abroad or "setting off at 3am".

tim, there is definitely an OR in there. So going abroad (or more importantly returning from abroad) is not unusual - but I'd suggest you are much more likely to find someone smuggling drugs or people who sails from the continent to the UK than someone who's out for a day sail in the Solent.

Setting off at 3am may be perfectly rational to catch a tide - but simply looking at the number of people doing it, as opposed to sailing during daylight / normal hours will tell you that it is "unusual". Obviously many people will do it without beign "dodgy" - but I think if you were trying to load or unload something you shouldn't (or nick a boat) that quiet times under the cover of darkness might be a good time.

 

[Tranona]

How many times do we have to go round this particular buoy?

The big flaw in this argument is the word "if" -- as in "if stopping people gets any guns, munitions or drugs. There is no reason to believe that it does, and plenty of reasons to believe that it does not -- not least UKBA's continuing inability to produce any actual examples of a successful conviction arising purely from a random boarding.

/QUOTE]

Worse than this, they are unable to provide any credible examples of private yachts being a major means of transport for illegal drugs or people smuggling. The few cases show that intelligence is the key (particularly with drugs) or conversely UKBA is so incompetent that it cannot see people smuggling going on right under its nose. Then we have the apparent inability of authorities to enforce the law anyway when offenders are caught.

 

[Marsupial]

I think if you were trying to load or unload something you shouldn't (or nick a boat) that quiet times under the cover of darkness might be a good time.

No, you hide trees in forests, so you go about "dodgy business" at peak times and melt into obscurety. Its only Hollywood that has dodgy deals at night.

AND

If you think that the "kids would like it" I assure you they wont, unless you want them traumatised? If the "gentlemen" on the skiffs (opps sorry wrong uniform) ribs were polite and friendly then it woildnt be too bad, but their not. IF you are boarded they take the view that YOU ARE a hostile until THEY decide your not, like I said, friendly!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

There is another side to random boarding; maintaining fear in the general population.

In Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine he argued that the USA Government has from its inception constantly instilled fear of an enemy in its population, which continues to this day. Could it be construed that the Government of the UK operates in a similar manner? I think it does.

The UKBA bosses are likely to understand that this sort of random boarding is pointless and that their success in intercepting drugs and illegal immigrants is entirely the result of intelligence led actions. Which begs the question why do they do it? Surely it's not just a show of capability meant to impress or worse, create and illusion of control?

 

[RIB_imposter]

How many times do we have to go round this particular buoy?

The big flaw in this argument is the word "if" -- as in "if stopping people gets any guns, munitions or drugs. There is no reason to believe that it does, and plenty of reasons to believe that it does not -- not least UKBA's continuing inability to produce any actual examples of a successful conviction arising purely from a random boarding.

there is of course a valid argument that says their presence and the "threat" of being boarded prevents some people from trying in the first place. Its a bit like the marked police car that encourages us not to speed - just because he doesn't catch anyone doesn't mean he had no value. In fact the anti-speed camera campaigners complain that there are now fewer people on out streets.

There is a huge logic jump in the assumption that a bunch of wannabe paramilitaries jumping on board a yacht and terrorizing an innocent family crew has anything whatsoever to do with finding drugs or weapons.

I think the huge logic assumption is that the UKBA cause terror. There's some anecdotal evidence that people were concerned - but actually at least as much saying courteous, polite and friendly. And i've certainly seen people saying - as soon as they say we were a family they had a quick look around and were on there way.

It's similar to the flawed logic that says we can cut down on landfill by only collecting your rubbish once a week, in that it sounds plausible, until you think about it. You don't reduce rubbish by not collecting it.

Actually although your analogy is completely irrelevant its also flawed. I've never heard the claim that less frequent collections reduced landfill, i've heard the claim that less frequent collections reduced carbon emissions and costs (though fewer vehicle movements). However, if your bin gets full your more likely to sort/recycle your waste, you may also be more likely to question just how much waste you are producing if you can see it piling up.

Random boardings are a rather stupid substitute for "intelligence": their chances of finding anything on the off chance are virtually nil... but what is certain is that they will alienate the very people who, with a minimal effort at building up some goodwill, could have been their eyes and ears around the coast.

The cynic in me wonders whether that is why they are doing it. By concentrating their efforts on random searches the black-clad bullies virtually guarantee that they will never stumble across anyone who is likely to stand up to them, and at the same time it reduces the risk that they might be provided with information that forces them to confront anyone who might fight back.

Now you've lost the plot tim. I would have bought into the story that they were effectively a political PR stunt to be "seen" to be doing something. Your logic that they are wannabe paramiliatries and that they don't want any tought jobs seems contradictory. But don't let logic get in the way of making a song and dance about something that will probably affect the average yachtsman one or twice in his life. There are probably more cost effective ways of tracking who's moving where and when and how and so spotting supsicious patterns: but they involve licensing/registraion/eborders and that will upset you more than a few random stops.

The only person I know who has been boarded - said they were absolutely professional, he saw immediately why they had raised suspicion, and was fairly sure that had he filed a passage plan with the CG he would have had a much less dramatic response.

 

[Marsupial]

The only person I know who has been boarded - said they were absolutely professional, he saw immediately why they had raised suspicion, and was fairly sure that had he filed a passage plan with the CG he would have had a much less dramatic response.

So that's it then - a sample of 1! and you were nt even there! HEARSAY! no less, and to think I thought you knew what you were talking about! had me taken in! AND by the way "professional" means gets paid for services rendered - nothing more. OH and by the way my experience is first hand I was there!

 

[Lady Campanula]

AND by the way "professional" means gets paid for services rendered - nothing more.

As I recall, being 'professional' involves rather more than just payment for service or services, and is usually taken to include 'adherence to an agreed code of conduct', 'initial qualification by examination', 'continuous professional development', and 'membership of a governing standards body'....

Then there's the cynical 'covered by professional indemnity insurance'.

But I could be wrong.

 

[NormanS]

there is of course a valid argument that says their presence and the "threat" of being boarded prevents some people from trying in the first place. Its a bit like the marked police car that encourages us not to speed - just because he doesn't catch anyone doesn't mean he had no value. In fact the anti-speed camera campaigners complain that there are now fewer people on out streets.
I think the huge logic assumption is that the UKBA cause terror. There's some anecdotal evidence that people were concerned - but actually at least as much saying courteous, polite and friendly. And i've certainly seen people saying - as soon as they say we were a family they had a quick look around and were on there way.
But don't let logic get in the way of making a song and dance about something that will probably affect the average yachtsman one or twice in his life. The only person I know who has been boarded - said they were absolutely professional, he saw immediately why they had raised suspicion, and was fairly sure that had he filed a passage plan with the CG he would have had a much less dramatic response.

The following was posted here by "Skents" on 15-11-09. If this was happening to you, would you still think that random boardings were OK?


Uk borders agency - is this a record?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------We have just had our seventh visit of the year from the rubber suited boys and girls of the UK Borders Agency and we are rapidly losing our sense of humour!

Six of the visits have been in our home port of Falmouth (or elsewhere in Carrick Roads) and one was a boarding at sea off the Lizard on a return trip from the Scillies. On that occasion they swabbed our boat for traces of explosives and drugs.

To be honest, we are getting rather fed up.

We have been told that we are regularly targeted because we have an offshore capable boat and "don't look like the usual type who can afford an up-together offshore yacht". It really is getting beyond a joke.

On another thread, someone said that the anti-Borders Agency sentiment shared by some sections of the sailing community was simply paranoia. We feel that it is justifiable to feel harrassed. How would forumites feel if a members of government agency dressed like unarmed commandos knocked on the door of their home seven times in a year and demanded to know where they had been and what they had been up to?

We are a husband and wife with a teenage son on board, we are all British by birth and have never had a brush with the law (apart from one speeding fine for doing 39mph in a 30mph zone). The actions of the UK Borders Agency is far more likely to alienate people like us than persuade us to report any "unusual activities".

In our opinion the UK Borders Agency is a disorganised shambles. Why call on the same innocent family on the same boat seven times in a year if they are keeping proper records?

 

[DaveS]

Done.

 

[rallyveteran]

The only person I know who has been boarded - said they were absolutely professional, he saw immediately why they had raised suspicion, and was fairly sure that had he filed a passage plan with the CG he would have had a much less dramatic response.

How on earth can he be "fairly sure" that doing anything would have given rise to a less dramatic response?

Is he the sort of person who puts lost teeth under his pillow in the hope of getting a sixpence?

If he believes that random boardings at the present low level have a deterrent effect (which I don't given the rewards for success in importing drugs) surely he realises that UKBA would logically treat those who have filed passage plans in just the same way as the majority who have not. Besides which does he really think that UKBA communicate with the Coastguard before boarding?

 

[fergie_mac66]

boarded

there is of course a valid argument that says their presence and the "threat" of being boarded prevents some people from trying in the first place. Its a bit like the marked police car that encourages us not to speed - just because he doesn't catch anyone doesn't mean he had no value. In fact the anti-speed camera campaigners complain that there are now fewer people on out streets.


I think the huge logic assumption is that the UKBA cause terror. There's some anecdotal evidence that people were concerned - but actually at least as much saying courteous, polite and friendly. And i've certainly seen people saying - as soon as they say we were a family they had a quick look around and were on there way.

Actually although your analogy is completely irrelevant its also flawed. I've never heard the claim that less frequent collections reduced landfill, i've heard the claim that less frequent collections reduced carbon emissions and costs (though fewer vehicle movements). However, if your bin gets full your more likely to sort/recycle your waste, you may also be more likely to question just how much waste you are producing if you can see it piling up.


Now you've lost the plot tim. I would have bought into the story that they were effectively a political PR stunt to be "seen" to be doing something. Your logic that they are wannabe paramiliatries and that they don't want any tought jobs seems contradictory. But don't let logic get in the way of making a song and dance about something that will probably affect the average yachtsman one or twice in his life. There are probably more cost effective ways of tracking who's moving where and when and how and so spotting supsicious patterns: but they involve licensing/registraion/eborders and that will upset you more than a few random stops.

The only person I know who has been boarded - said they were absolutely professional, he saw immediately why they had raised suspicion, and was fairly sure that had he filed a passage plan with the CG he would have had a much less dramatic response.

agree totally, would have replied similar but was working.

I have been boarded by .. er customs .. about 5 years ago. off Cromer (5 am) .Were they Called UKBA then? Dont know but same object. We were in westerly 22 Me and 2 of my children. Two came on board !Was a bit squshed in cockpit they did not go in cabin ,spoke to me 2 mins and left. At the time it appeared to me that they were looking for someone in particular . Didn't scare me, did not feel threatened and they were politeness itself!

Been boarded by Douanes once years ago and stopped in car by them (story here)

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241496 (post 25)

Perhaps Its me genial hospitality ! Children were excited and had a laugh with all of them but then I havent greeted them with any form of hostility and The fact that they are around the coast, only servs to give me confidence that auth's are trying to give protection to our coasts even if its not that effective. Hmm the only grumpy one , was the one of the Douanes but then he did get resoundingly laughed at !! The next day he was a happy chappie but then he did have a couple of glasses of wine !

 

[timbartlett]

there is of course a valid argument that says their presence and the "threat" of being boarded prevents some people from trying in the first place.

Rubbish. The amount of any sort of contraband brought into the UK by pleasure craft is miniscule compared with the amount that comes in by commercial vessel -- often/usuallly without the knowledge of the crew because it is in a sealed container or a vehicle. And the reason it is done that way is because it is a lot easier, quicker, and cheaper to move significant quantities.

I think the huge logic assumption is that the UKBA cause terror. There's some anecdotal evidence that people were concerned

I suppose it depends on where you draw the line between terror and concerned. But how come first-hand reports are "anecdotal" when I refer back to them, but your version of what your mate said about his experience is evidence?

Actually although your analogy is completely irrelevant its also flawed. I've never heard the claim that less frequent collections reduced landfill, i've heard the claim that less frequent collections reduced carbon emissions and costs (though fewer vehicle movements). However, if your bin gets full your more likely to sort/recycle your waste, you may also be more likely to question just how much waste you are producing if you can see it piling up.

My analogy was that both are lies used by officials in an attempt to justify unnacceptable policies. We have four people and seven pets in our house, next door but one is a young single woman and her cat. Yet we both have the same size bin. Here (where we get weekly collections) we can usually manage. In Eastleigh, where the council preferred to leave rubbish festering in the streets for weeks on end, I -- like many other people -- used to spend a lot of my time queuing to get into the dump. Fortnightly collections did not cut down on rubbish, and it created more CO2 rather than less. And it made me think "oh F**k them then" and not bother sorting anything.

Now you've lost the plot tim. I would have bought into the story that they were effectively a political PR stunt to be "seen" to be doing something. Your logic that they are wannabe paramiliatries and that they don't want any tought jobs seems contradictory.

It's not at all contradictory. They are bullies. They enjoy throwing their weight around over people who are unlikely to fight back. And it makes them feel "hard" to strut around in black kit with big boots and helmets. But like any other bully, they don't fancy the idea of meeting anyone that really is "hard", or who might not be intimidated by boots and helmets.

was fairly sure that had he filed a passage plan with the CG he would have had a much less dramatic response.

I'm fairly sure he's talking rubbish. Apart from anything else, the coastguard have no interest in yachts "filing" passage plans with them, and the chances of one agency communicating with any other are zilch.

 

[Marsupial]

As I recall, being 'professional' involves rather more than just payment for service or services, and is usually taken to include 'adherence to an agreed code of conduct', 'initial qualification by examination', 'continuous professional development', and 'membership of a governing standards body'....

Then there's the cynical 'covered by professional indemnity insurance'.

But I could be wrong.

You are - your version is what "professional bodies" would like it to be, but in the final analysis to be a professional all you have to do is charge for your services, which by implication means some body thinks they are worth paying for. The word has been currupted like "sophisticated" is it a compliment or an insult? or both?