UKBA 35% increase in boardings!!!!

[peterb]

I support all this 100%. I have been boarded a number of times by UK, French and Dutch authorities. Always an interesting experience, especially when, on one occasion off Le Havre I was balancing the yacht with a following breeze trying not to jybe involuntarily whilst answering questions!PWG

As a matter of interest, who is in charge? Does the boarding party take over? If you, as skipper, decided to turn round and head in a different direction, would the boarding party stop you? Because if they are effectively taking charge of your vessel, then surely they are taking responsibility?

Boats aren't like cars; you can't just pull in to the side of the road and stop. What happens if, on being boarded, you hand the helm to the first boarder and say "Right, you've taken over, it's up to you now!" What happens if the boat gybes and knocks the second boarder into the sea? Who is legally responsible?

 

[MrCramp]

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

If you had been boarded by a load of blokes dressed in black who banged into your boat, treated it like trash, and treated you like dirt, I expect you might have a different opinion.

I have been thanked on three occasions for helping the local police but I would never ever do anything to assist the Custons and Excise people, even if I saw illegal activity going on.

 

[RIB_imposter]

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!

Marsupial, I suggest you go and buy yourself a new dictionary because professional has a number of meanings. As was probably clear from the context, professional was being used in this context as the antonym of "unprofessional" rather than the antonyn of "amatuer" as you suggest. Your ridiculous pedantry undermined the rest of your post. However to answer your point - yes out of all the people I know personally who use the water only 1 has been boarded (or if any of the others have it was such an insignificant event they haven't been shouting about it). Add that to the number of people who post on here who I don't know saying they've been boarded and the staff were polite and the experience was fine together with reality that people always shout louder about bad experiences than good - and I believe that actually "hostile" boardings of pleasure craft are not as common as people would suggest. Although I have no evidence to support it (that never stopped anyone on YBW forums did it!) many of the people who experience "unpleasant" treatment by UKBA are probably a little bit hostile to them when they board - possibly a sentiment stirred up by threads like this.

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?

Norman, I've no idea why they've been boarded so many times. If I was them I'd be asking UKBA or indeed the home secretary (I think that is the right dept) to provide some proper explanation. Perhaps they have some (incorrect?) information that has them on a hit list? Or perhaps they are rude and aggressive to the UKBA staff - I'm not suggesting that is a legitiamite reason for being targeted. Either that or did they offer them a cuppa and biscuits - are their biscuits particularly good? Presumably in their small area there are a limited number of boarding parties - have they not been on before?

One vessel getting a bad experience is not a reason to drop the "whole programme". There has of course to be a belief that ANY vessel can be stopped and that having been stopped before is not an exemption from future stops otherwise that would be a license to smuggle.

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?

As I recall they were told that they were spotted by a CG spotter plane over the channel, in a very high speed boat (which could have outrun the customs cutter) crossing from France at night. The boat had just been bought, and was not "expected" so gave cause for suspicion - they believed that quite unintentionally they way they had acted had given cause for suspicion. In that sense they weren't a "random" boarding. How many other "random" boardings were also doing legitimate stuff that actually raised their profile to the UKBA?


Tim - I'm not going to get into a drawn out argument on this with you. You've got an entrenched view that you've made quite clear previously and I've never seen your strongly worded opinions on anything be swayed by anyone - with such resistance to revise your opinion even in the face of logical argument you should consider a career in politics!

People need to spend more time sailing and less time worrying about the tiny probability that they might get boarded by the men (and women) in black. And on that note I'm off to the boat...

 

[Lady Campanula]

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?

Well, I'm a mild-mannered and courteous kind of forumeer, settled in the quaint expectation that others will respond in like manner to my gentle and undogmatic choice of language.

So I reached again for my handy copy of the Penguin English Dictionary, for the more authoritarian, and heavier, OED is safely upstairs.....

profession n 1a. an occupation requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b. the whole body of people engaged in such an occupation

professional adj 1a. relating or belonging to or engaged in a profession b. characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession

Then, just to settle the matter definitively, I turned - of course - to Wikipedia.....

Definitions of professional on the Web:

* engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood; "the professional man or woman possesses distinctive qualifications"; "began her professional career after the Olympics"; "professional theater"; "professional football"; "a professional cook"; "professional actors ...
* a person engaged in one of the learned professions
* master: an authority qualified to teach apprentices
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A professional is a member of a vocation founded upon specialised educational training.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

Then, of course, there's Alice's discourse on marsupials....

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Enjoi....!

 

[fergie_mac66]

Well, I'm a mild-mannered and courteous kind of forumeer, settled in the quaint expectation that others will respond in like manner to my gentle and undogmatic choice of language.

So I reached again for my handy copy of the Penguin English Dictionary, for the more authoritarian, and heavier, OED is safely upstairs.....



Then, just to settle the matter definitively, I turned - of course - to Wikipedia.....



Then, of course, there's Alice's discourse on marsupials....

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

Enjoi....!

I note that wiki' has an entry Professional cook
Perhaps that should be professional Crook !!!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Rib_imposter it's not about hostile boarding or even the number of times one gets selected for boarding. I dont want to be boarded for random checks by UKBA or the police. I do not believe that they should have that right. I also believe that preventing contraband is more efficiently addressed through other methods.

I used to sail close to the American and British Nuclear Submarine bases (Firth of Clyde) on a regular basis (1980s), over many years and take photographs. The police boats were in attendance, the patrol ribs did a close pass by, but I was never boarded. The IRA was a real threat to these bases but still the authorities did not feel the need to have a random boarding policy. I was photographed once from a S60 helicopter when there was a big CND rally.

In my previous post on this thread I mentioned a Michael Moore film, think of me as paranoid if you wish (I am not), but there is an insidious agenda (maybe not even deliberate) at subverting the very real power held by the general population. I dont like it, I dont want it and I dont believe its needed to control drugs or illegal aliens.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim - I'm not going to get into a drawn out argument on this with you. You've got an entrenched view that you've made quite clear previously and I've never seen your strongly worded opinions on anything be swayed by anyone - with such resistance to revise your opinion even in the face of logical argument you should consider a career in politics!

Logical argument, I'm afraid, is trumped by first hand experience. You might argue, for instance, that air is transparent, therefore the sky should appear black because we can see straight through the atmosphere into space. But first-hand experience tells us that is not true. Ultimately, if we look hard enough, we find the flaws in the "logical argument"

By the same token, "logical argument" tells me that a clerk in some government office has no reason to lie to me or to try to rip me off. But first hand experience tells me that they usually do. It may be that they are trying to increase the income of their department, or because they are trying to cover up some earlier cock-up, or that they have been given some disinformation by their superiors that leads them to think that everyone is a crook. I don't care what the excuse is -- or why the "logical argument" is wrong: I just want it put right.

I'm not asking for cringing servility from the civil service, but I think I have the right not to be treated as a criminal, not to be lied to, and not to have my time and money wasted -- whether by incompetence or dishonesty or a combination of the two.

Until I see some sign that things are changing, it would be reckless -- illogical, even -- for me to accept anything that comes out of any government office at face value.

 

[peterb]

Until I see some sign that things are changing, it would be reckless -- illogical, even -- for me to accept anything that comes out of any government office at face value.

Interesting, isn't it. I spent 35 years working in the Civil Service, and not once did I see the sort of behaviour that Mr Bartlett describes. It would be reckless -- illogical, even -- for me to accept anything that comes out of Mr Bartlett at face value.

 

[Marsupial]

Well, I'm a mild-mannered and courteous kind of forumeer, settled in the quaint expectation that others will respond in like manner to my gentle and undogmatic choice of language.

So I reached again for my handy copy of the Penguin English Dictionary, for the more authoritarian, and heavier, OED is safely upstairs.....



Then, just to settle the matter definitively, I turned - of course - to Wikipedia.....



Then, of course, there's Alice's discourse on marsupials....

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

Enjoi....!

thank you for that sophisicated answer.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Interesting, isn't it. I spent 35 years working in the Civil Service, and not once did I see the sort of behaviour that Mr Bartlett describes. It would be reckless -- illogical, even -- for me to accept anything that comes out of Mr Bartlett at face value.

That what happens when you are too close to the coal face.

I try to avoid civil servants, both local and national government, as they have this impression they are our rulers and cannot wait to apply a fine or write a snotty letter.

I even got a snotty letter from my dustman because I left my bottles and papers on my OWN drive, and the bottle lorry had already been, so the paper people decided that this was enough to refuse to take my papers - all in their own council supplied sack - as I had not followed the rules. As I had only that morning arrived back from Australia, I put them out thinking they had not been yet.

I politely rang the council and explained the details of my council tax bill, including the bit about contributing to their pay and pension and after a bit, they sent a van around to pick them both up.

They need to understand that THEY serve us and not the other way round.

Applying this to UKBA, they think they can just run roughshod over innocent boaters just because they think they can.

Only last week I rang the planning office of a council in North Wales to ask why a hotelier had knocked down an ancient slate sea wall to build a slipway that he has already been refused planning for. Five men and machinery working every day and regular deliveries from Jewson's with material, but they told me that 'I shouldn't worry about it'.

As I pay rates to this council, it is certainly my business and they should be stopping this man before he does any further damage.

 

[RIB_imposter]

Logical argument, I'm afraid, is trumped by first hand experience. You might argue, for instance, that air is transparent, therefore the sky should appear black because we can see straight through the atmosphere into space. But first-hand experience tells us that is not true. Ultimately, if we look hard enough, we find the flaws in the "logical argument"

By the same token, "logical argument" tells me that a clerk in some government office has no reason to lie to me or to try to rip me off. But first hand experience tells me that they usually do. It may be that they are trying to increase the income of their department, or because they are trying to cover up some earlier cock-up, or that they have been given some disinformation by their superiors that leads them to think that everyone is a crook. I don't care what the excuse is -- or why the "logical argument" is wrong: I just want it put right.

I'm not asking for cringing servility from the civil service, but I think I have the right not to be treated as a criminal, not to be lied to, and not to have my time and money wasted -- whether by incompetence or dishonesty or a combination of the two.

Until I see some sign that things are changing, it would be reckless -- illogical, even -- for me to accept anything that comes out of any government office at face value.

Well tim - thats just reinforced my opinions about your ranting on here.

Oh - and the "logical" position (if you assume air is transparent and therefore the sky should be transparent) is that the sky would appear the "colour of the sun". It does indeed appear "black" but only at night!

 

[timbartlett]

Well tim - thats just reinforced my opinions about your ranting on here.

Oh - and the "logical" position (if you assume air is transparent and therefore the sky should be transparent) is that the sky would appear the "colour of the sun". It does indeed appear "black" but only at night!

Well if you want to try a "logical argument" that I should ignore first-hand personal experience, by all means do.

But please try to make sure it holds more water than your suggestion that the sky should appear the colour of the sun when the sun -- even at mid-day on a clear day -- occupies only about .003% of the visible sky.

 

[jamesjermain]

I applaud Keen Ed for putting in his FOI request and posting the result here. Of course the RYA should really be doing this but they have chosen not to. After all they wouldn't want to upset any of their mates in Government would they?

Er! Of course the should, and of course they have - see RYA Mags. passim

 

[timbartlett]

Interesting, isn't it. I spent 35 years working in the Civil Service, and not once did I see the sort of behaviour that Mr Bartlett describes. It would be reckless -- illogical, even -- for me to accept anything that comes out of Mr Bartlett at face value.

There are none so blind as they that will not see.

Of course, it is possible that Peterb may have been involved in some branch of the civil service that somehow managed to preserve its integrity -- I am sure there must be a few -- or that his service was so long ago that the culture of institutional dishonesty had not yet taken over.

But until the civil service acknowledges that it has a problem, and takes steps to put it right, it has no right to expect anything but contempt and distrust from the general public

 

[Tranona]

Er! Of course the should, and of course they have - see RYA Mags. passim

Yes, of course they have asked the questions.

It is the answers (or rather lack of answers) that is the problem.

Nowhere have I seen published any credible evidence that private yachts are caught regularly importing illegal substances or people. UKBA refuses to issue any information on the level of activity, even when asked under FOI (citing confidentiality).

Instead they quote meaningless, contradictory and unverifiable "statisics" which we (and the RYA and mags) are expected to accept unconditionally.

When there is only one source of information that source can say whatever it likes if there is no mechanism for challenge.

 

[rallyveteran]

Er! Of course the should, and of course they have - see RYA Mags. passim

I've seen some weak sabre rattling from the RYA but no actual FOI requests. Happy to be proved wrong if you can, but if the RYA have been seeking the data, you wonder why Elaine Bunting felt she had to do their job for them here:

http://www.yachtingworld.com/blogs/elaine-bunting/427523/stop-and-search-no-answer

 

[RIB_imposter]

But please try to make sure it holds more water than your suggestion that the sky should appear the colour of the sun when the sun -- even at mid-day on a clear day -- occupies only about .003% of the visible sky.

Diameter of the sun: approx 1.4 million km
Diameter of the earth: about 13000 km

The sun radiates light, to a first approximation as a point source - therefore the wavelengths of light reaching you if there were no atmosphere would be determined by the "colour of the sun". It certainly wouldn't be black!

 

[NormanS]

Diameter of the sun: approx 1.4 million km
Diameter of the earth: about 13000 km

The sun radiates light, to a first approximation as a point source - therefore the wavelengths of light reaching you if there were no atmosphere would be determined by the "colour of the sun". It certainly wouldn't be black!

I think you may have drifted ever so slightly from the main point.

 

[RIB_imposter]

I think you may have drifted ever so slightly from the main point.

Indeed although I think if you can be a**ed following the thread it was TimBartlet who said something along the lines of the sky is blue because you can't trust civil servants. If civil servants didn't tell lies the sky would be black! Or at least I think it was something like that.

 

[timbartlett]

Indeed although I think if you can be a**ed following the thread it was TimBartlet who said ....

I didn't say anything of the kind. But I'm sorry if it was too complicated for you: I thought I was arguing with someone who had a basic grasp of english (and arithmetic). My mistake.