UKBA 35% increase in boardings!!!!

[Tidewaiter2]

Mutatis Mutandis, The Craphats are still the same!

What tosh. Politicians - you know - that corrupt bunch of self-serving leeches - they are the ones who "have decided to criminalise" certain substances (in some cases against the recommendations of drug experts), not "we as a society".

Likewise, the policemen and civil servants of which you speak are not "carrying out society's wishes", but the instructions of their superiors - such as chief constables or senior civil servants, neither of which are individuals elected by the public.

Exactly why Democracy is the worst form of Government- except for all the others!
every so often, we are allowed to change the snouts in the trough( or keep the leeches that are already gorged!).

i have no illusions as to the wisdom/moral strength/ character of our elected politicians or the electorate, but as the Roman Empire ran on the Optios, Centurions, and Procurators, plus the Imperial Freedmen, so we run on those who will administer the Laws duly enacted as fairly, humanely, and impartially as they can, until the wave of Chaos overwhelms them.

If one reads Sam. Pepys Diary, one can see how the same sort of person through out History has tried to do what Society thinks is the right thing, or worse, what they know to be the right thing despite Society not really giving a toss.

In doing so, they often accept that what current fashionable thinking is , is incorrect, but do their duty; "Go, tell the Spartans, here obediant to their orders, here we lie(as in repose, Permanently)."
Their job is to try and keep the svart-ulfar from bothering the 'nice' people, or vice versa, (who can decide who is who?).
The study of Roman History delivers many parrells with the UK today, particularly the rise of a "Senatorial" (aka political) Class, who have never been cold, wet, sh@£t scared and tired in their lives, let alone hungery, skint, and without a roof over their head.

So, personally, I take the view;
1)I woke up this Morning!
2)that in 100 years or so, everyone will be dead,
3)so back to the important things in Life-
We got the automatic bilge pump fitted, but not wired, had a good night at the Fitting out Supper, it didn't pee with rain 'til we'd got everything loaded in the car to come Home Sunday, the Eldest came Home tonight for 24 hours in between meetings, and the Youngest & his Lass are coming sailing at the Weekend!

Wonder if we'll be able to test the UKBA customer service skills this weekend in the Solent- be a bit bumpy, I expect????

 

[timbartlett]

With all due respect, Tim, these "statistics" are nonsense!.

Any reputable statistical survey openly discusses its methodology and likely errors -- as this one does. To my mind, such honesty enhances its integrity, rather than reduces it.

But whether the number of yachts has fallen by X+Y or X-Y is hardly the point.
Bluerm talked about "increasing shoals of pleasure yachts" , when clearly the "shoals" are not increasing. Whether boats are being left to rot, or are being sold abroad, or are being kept overseas, there are ample reasons to believe that the number of boats in the UK has reduced rather than increased over recent years.

If you want to join Bluerm166 in arguing that the boating industry has been booming over the past couple of years, by all means do. But please support this counter-intuitive argument with some evidence, rather than just by saying you don't like what you read in a series of authoritative report commissioned and endorsed by the MCA, the RNLI, the BMF and the RYA.

 

[Tranona]

If you want to join Bluerm166 in arguing that the boating industry has been booming over the past couple of years, by all means do. But please support this counter-intuitive argument with some evidence, rather than just by saying you don't like what you read in a series of authoritative report commissioned and endorsed by the MCA, the RNLI, the BMF and the RYA.

Just because a lot of high profile organisations have wasted money on such a survey does not make it "authoritative". It only shows how gullible they are.

I taught Social Science Research Methods in a well-respected University for 25 years and if any student had proposed a survey such as this I would only conclude he had failed to attend my lectures or even to read the many books on the subject.

The survey in respect of boat ownership fails on two counts. Does it represent reality? No, because the number of boats in use is a fact and not somebody's opinion or answer to a question. Is the sample representative of owners of boats. No, it appears to be a random sample of the population as a whole.

Just to explain how useless the statistic is. The sample was roughly 13000 out of a population of 49000000, or 0.026%. The number of sailing yachts estimated was approx 58000, which means that 0.114% of the population are estimated to own a yacht. That is approx 38 respondents in the sample. Are you seriously trying to tell me you believe an estimate based on the uncorroborated responses of 38 people? Just imagine if in next year's sample there were 4 more yacht owners, the number of yachts in the UK would mysteriously rise by over 5000!

That is why the level of confidence is so poor. It could be anywhere between 41071 and 76225 (using a confidence level of 90%) with the recorded average (because they assume it is normally distributed) midway between the two at 58648. Completely meaningless, as is the change year on year.

The only way of knowing whether the number of boats is going up or down is to count them, and we have no mechanism for doing this. Even then this does not tell us very much about the number of boats that might make passages offshore and perhaps be tempted to do a bit of smuggling.

If you look at the problem from the other end, even though UKBA are very cagy about releasing any information, many of the reported cases of smuggling, like the case this week, do not involve UK based and/or registered boats. So the number of boats in the UK, whether it is rising (as common sense says it is) or falling as those useless "statistics" suggest, is irrelevant.


That is why it is so important to get answers to the OPs original questions as this will provides facts rather than spurious guesses. And this is precisely why UKBA does not want to answer the questions because the facts probably do not fit their rhetoric. We saw exactly the same in the debate over drinking. Despite the imperfections in the data collecting process, the proponents of the regulations were unable to produce any facts to support their position.

 

[Tayra]

I have one of those cynical suspicions that much of the increase in boardings is not due to them trying to be more effective at controlling immigration/smuggling, rather that their political masters are demanding that they take action that the public sees so it appears as if they are doing more.

The reality is that every boarding of an innocent is a failure, if they are as they claim working on intelligence led policing (that is why they took away the small port Waterguard stations). If they were doing better and working effectively a far higher proportion of their actions would result in exposing wrongdoing.

"Intelligence led policing" now there is one of the worlds greatest oxymorons!!

 

[rjp]

......
That is why it is so important to get answers to the OPs original questions as this will provides facts rather than spurious guesses. And this is precisely why UKBA does not want to answer the questions because the facts probably do not fit their rhetoric......

I've just had a quick glance at the FOI and the 'Prejudice' defence that the UKBA has claimed. Personally I cannot see how their refusal to answer the original questions can be justified.

The 'prejudice' test in Section 31 of the FOI Act states that "The test of prejudice:
A public authority cannot withhold information, or refuse to confirm or deny that it holds information, unless the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the purposes or activities listed in the exemption. The prejudice must be genuine and of substance and its likelihood must be decided on a case-by-case basis. A public authority must therefore explain why the disclosure of the specific information requested would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice. It is not acceptable to say that disclosure of that type or class of information would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice.
It is important to recognise that there are two alternative parts to the prejudice test. If a public authority considers that prejudice ‘would be likely’ to occur, there is no need for the prejudice to be more probable than not, but the authority will need to show that it is real and significant and not merely a remote possibility. However, if an authority decides to say that prejudice ‘would’ occur, it will need to show that the prejudice is at least more probable than not."

I can't see how the responses to the OP's quetions explain the nature of the prejudice or show how answers to any of the questions could pose other than a perceived 'egg on face' threat to the UKBA - mere institutional embarassment is surely not 'prejudicial' is it?

Whether we agree or disagree with the UKBA boarding policies we all have a right to know the information. Perhaps if we ALL bombard the UKBA with FOI requests using the unanswered original questions they might realise there's a problem. And if they fail to respond satisfactorily again we could ALL refer their fatuous defense to the Information Commisioner as is our democratic right.

Also I wonder what might be the effect if everyone seeing a UKBA vessel was to hail it on channel 16 and ask if they intended to board? An innocent enough request that would certainly blow their cover and perhaps show them how much they depend on the goodwill of local sailors.

John

 

[maxi77]

I've just had a quick glance at the FOI and the 'Prejudice' defence that the UKBA has claimed. Personally I cannot see how their refusal to answer the original questions can be justified.

The 'prejudice' test in Section 31 of the FOI Act states that "The test of prejudice:
A public authority cannot withhold information, or refuse to confirm or deny that it holds information, unless the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the purposes or activities listed in the exemption. The prejudice must be genuine and of substance and its likelihood must be decided on a case-by-case basis. A public authority must therefore explain why the disclosure of the specific information requested would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice. It is not acceptable to say that disclosure of that type or class of information would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice.
It is important to recognise that there are two alternative parts to the prejudice test. If a public authority considers that prejudice ‘would be likely’ to occur, there is no need for the prejudice to be more probable than not, but the authority will need to show that it is real and significant and not merely a remote possibility. However, if an authority decides to say that prejudice ‘would’ occur, it will need to show that the prejudice is at least more probable than not."

I can't see how the responses to the OP's quetions explain the nature of the prejudice or show how answers to any of the questions could pose other than a perceived 'egg on face' threat to the UKBA - mere institutional embarassment is surely not 'prejudicial' is it?

Whether we agree or disagree with the UKBA boarding policies we all have a right to know the information. Perhaps if we ALL bombard the UKBA with FOI requests using the unanswered original questions they might realise there's a problem. And if they fail to respond satisfactorily again we could ALL refer their fatuous defense to the Information Commisioner as is our democratic right.

Also I wonder what might be the effect if everyone seeing a UKBA vessel was to hail it on channel 16 and ask if they intended to board? An innocent enough request that would certainly blow their cover and perhaps show them how much they depend on the goodwill of local sailors.

John

I suspect that you asre right, though I equally suspect that mass action will do little to change their response, that is the nature of the beast. To change is to admit you were wrong and that is not possible. The only way this can be dealt with now is through the commisioner, though as we saw wityh MPs expenses this is not always quick or easy. On the other hand if there is a change of government a new minister may find it expedient to accuse his predecessor of malfeasance.

 

[timbartlett]

Perhaps if we ALL bombard the UKBA with FOI requests using the unanswered original questions they might realise there's a problem. And if they fail to respond satisfactorily again we could ALL refer their fatuous defense to the Information Commisioner as is our democratic right.

No! Please don't!
If they get an apparently orchestrated campaign of requests for the same information, that provides them with a cast-iron excuse for ignoring them ... something which at present they haven't got.
Whilst I agree that it is pretty incestuous having a civil servant "investigating" his mates in the civil service, a single, calm complaint to the commissioner by the individual who made the original request is the way to go.

On the other hand if there is a change of government a new minister may find it expedient to accuse his predecessor of malfeasance.

It's got nothing to do with the politicians. This is a civil service matter.

 

[maxi77]

.

It's got nothing to do with the politicians. This is a civil service matter.

That may be the theory but any thing of this nature seems to be driven by the dead hand of our present government who work very very hard to control exactly what is released. Mandelson was not named the Prince of Darkness for nothing, and one onbly has to watch them all at it to know that reponses like that bear the same stamp.

 

[haydude]

Thank you, well done!

So I put in a FOI request about the UKBA

Thank you for submitting this query and sharing the information with us. WELL DONE!
Please continue to pursue the matter to obtain the information they did not want to disclose because I believe that their excuse is unsustainable.

Thank you again.

 

[geoff3nebel]

geoff3nebel

I've been boarded when my brother and I entered Rye in bad weather and poor viz. We saw the cutter in the Channel and I guess it watched us on radar for the rummagers were waiting for us. It was inconvenient and time-consuming while two officers searched a 23' Macwester Rowan... But the very fact that it happened and continues to happen should increase awareness that it could happen to anyone. It may therefore have the effect of discouraging those one-off, mis-guided and foolish 'amateurs/opportunists' who may be tempted to take the risk. However it will have no effect on professional criminals.

 

[webcraft]

Am I missing something?

Why the tone of indignation and upset that one of our government departments is (for once) actually doing what they should be?

I'm as anti surveillance state as anyone else, and disagree with the whole e-borders project, but personally I would have no problem if every vessel in UK territorial waters was boarded. Britain has a hugely porous coastline, and has been widely seen as a soft touch for years for smugglers of all sorts - drugs, people, etc.

How many of those here protesting about boardings would also get very upset if illegal immigration rose?

The fact that HM Customs can enter your house or board your vessel without a warrant is not acceptable to many people as it is a very basic infringement of liberty. The 'war on drugs' was lost years ago. It is a pity this government refuses to listen to the advisors it appoints or to senior police officers who stick their heads above the parapet. And - does anyone know what percentage of illegal immigrants come in by yacht? I would imagine it is vanishingly small.

Quite a few smaller yachts have been boarded in the Sound of Mull in recent years. Not one of them was carrying drugs or illegal immigrants. It is just an excuse for the Borders boys to play pirates IMO. In fact, one yachtsman of my acquaintance mooted the other day that it might be interesting if you see a fast rib coming towards you manned by men in black to quickly fire off a DSC distress alert with the Piracy option selected from the menu.

Good on the OP for pursuing his enquiries - we await further information he may ferret out with interest. It will also be interesting to see how many times he is boarded this season!

- W

 

[johnabbott893]

Quite a few smaller yachts have been boarded in the Sound of Mull in recent years. Not one of them was carrying drugs or illegal immigrants. It is just an excuse for the Borders boys to play pirates IMO. In fact, one yachtsman of my acquaintance mooted the other day that it might be interesting if you see a fast rib coming towards you manned by men in black to quickly fire off a DSC distress alert with the Piracy option selected from the menu.

If you are being approached by a rib acting in a suspicious manner and you have any doubt about its identity then you should put your full anti piracy measures into effect. DSC, firearms, evasive manoeuvres, Molotov cocktails etc. If they are UKBA then they should only approach after identifying themselves after which you should accept their boarding and bend over and take it.

 

[Anne]

I've been borded once, just off Hurst Castle in a friends motorboat. They asked us nicely on the radio to slow down and the rib came in, dropped off 3 of them. They asked us all a few questions, we showed them round the boat, and that was it.

They did state that the cutter they were on covers a vast area, and has limited sucess with spot checks, but to be fair if I had been considering stowing a couple of immigrents in the bilges along with a few firearms and a couple of tonnes of drugs, I wouldnt after that!

Good on them I say. The more drugs etc that can be stopped/detered, the better.

I have to say, I know if I saw a suspicious boat in Newtown Creek unloading in the middle of the night, I would phone them, I hope this is just common sense, and doesnt need them wandering round the marinas to tell us this.

I believe Coastwatch http://www.nci.org.uk/ also keep an eye out for suspicious vessels.

 

[DickSmith]

UKBA Boardings and the new Government web site

Please note yesterday I entered a suggestion on the new web site established by Government to obtain suggestions from the public about what they feel is wrong with the UK and the Laws that should be removed.

I would like to invite all on this blog to log on to the Govt page by following the link below and vote/comment on my suggestion. By doing so we can support the RYA in getting some more publicity for this terible infringement of Civil Liberty.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/resto...ding-vessels-at-sea-in-an-intimidating-manner

Please direct your boating friends to my appeal.

Regards and good weather to all

Dick

 

[Twister_Ken]

Dunnit. See also (and support if you agree)

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/resto...orders-controls-for-leisure-boaters/idea-view

 

[jac]

Have also added my support.

Can i ask that if people are going to support that as well as marking with 5 stars ( if appropriate) that they also make comments - especially about waste of money.

I have a feeling that our lords and masters will take more notice if there are comments suggesting the UKBA resources could be better spent on intelligence led activity rather than harrasing law abiding families

 

[RIB_imposter]

is 35% significant?

Is a 35% increase in boarding significant (and I note that is across all vessels not just "yachts" so actually the number of yachts may have fallen)? I don't think as a single year's statistic it is particularly meaningful. If I was doing 4 thorough searches per day before and I now have changed to doing 2 thorough searches and 4 quick checks - the boarding go up by 35% I may detect more crime but I may also cause less "net" inconvenience to the boating public. Similarly if the boats have moved to busier areas so can do more stops with less "transit time".

I'd suggest they are reasonable in not disclosing the split between yachts and other vessels (actually you'd have to get them to define yacht anyway - e.g. do you mean a pleasure vessel, or boat with flappy bits) - if they appear to be focussing on yachts and they tell people that - their targets will stop using yachts; likewise if there is actually less chance of getting stopped in a yacht on a nice day than a rib at night - the "enemy" will look at using yachts more. Make it clear that all vessels are possibilities for stop and search.

Quite a few smaller yachts have been boarded in the Sound of Mull in recent years. Not one of them was carrying drugs or illegal immigrants.

So their deterrent effect is working! There have been yachts used for smuggling on the west coast in the past so I'd suggest its not an unreasonable position to stop a small number to put that seed of doubt into anyone thinking about it.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

So their deterrent effect is working! There have been yachts used for smuggling on the west coast in the past so I'd suggest its not an unreasonable position to stop a small number to put that seed of doubt into anyone thinking about it.

Yes, and I haven't seen any elephants on Capricious since I started using elephant repellent, either!

As far as I'm concerned, random boarding of anyone is a breach of civil liberties, just as the old "Suss" laws were.

 

[RIB_imposter]

Yes, and I haven't seen any elephants on Capricious since I started using elephant repellent, either!

If I pm you can you send me some - I've never had an elephant problem, but you've got me worried.

As far as I'm concerned, random boarding of anyone is a breach of civil liberties, just as the old "Suss" laws were.

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).

 

[Elemental]

As far as I'm concerned, random boarding of anyone is a breach of civil liberties, just as the old "Suss" laws were.

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).

I agree completely. Time for some to get things in perspective I think ...