UK Borders - Shaming
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I frequently get a firm interrogation from an unsmiling official at US immigration, but I have never experienced anything like this. Sadly it is not unique at UK ports of entry. A few weeks before Poland joined the EU, a Polish friend was refused entry and sent home. He crime was to speak poor English and when interviewed to say that she was staying for a week when she meant a month. We promptly got her turned round in Poland and back into the UK through another port, accompanied by an English speaker within twenty-four hours.
You have to wonder what sort of person denies someone entry, merely because they can. Or what sort of person would choose to make a career out of treating people like this merely on grounds or their race, nationality or justified by some minor paperwork error. They behave like this because they answer to no-one - often there is no-one in the UK to speak up for their victims.
The actions of the UK Border Agency and its employees make me deeply ashamed to be British.
You have to wonder what sort of person denies someone entry, merely because they can. Or what sort of person would choose to make a career out of treating people like this merely on grounds or their race, nationality or justified by some minor paperwork error. They behave like this because they answer to no-one - often there is no-one in the UK to speak up for their victims.
The actions of the UK Border Agency and its employees make me deeply ashamed to be British.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Haute Vienne France
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxxy's story is shameful. Why on earth would a Californian want to live in the UK? It would explain why the immigration desks are empty though, the staff are all in the back office chatting up west coast girls.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DCS99 she was in fact Canadian now living in LA.
Ha ha ha Rothin I never thought of that but I think thats exactly what my son was probably doing before he met "the one"!!! Well, not in the airport back room offices but possibly on the wonderful beaches!!!
He too was questioned at LA border on arrival earlier this year simply because I suppose he is young and he is a boy and probably because .....well as you said who would want to live in England really if you've got the chance to be there with sun sea and.....enough said!!! They would have more reason to question him but it was over with very quickly and allowed to pass through. His return ticket was for nearly 3 months but that wasn't really questioned because as I said before they accept that when someone has just flown all that way they want to make the most of it. She was only going to be here 8 weeks and they weren't even going to be staying in the UK for most of that time!!
Are we just old fashioned here? The UK border agency whilst questioning my son after interviewing his girlfriend asked him why he was able to stay in LA for that amount of time?? Are they mad?? Most young people take time out - so do some of us oldies come to think of it - what is so bad about that???
It doesn't surprise me some of the answers I have had back that others have experienced this. I just wish there was something that could be done about it - any ideas anyone?? I read a thread further up where someone said we all sit back and say yes sir, yes please, bring it on and never do we complain - well, we do but its usually on forum's like this or in the pub but where do we actually go to bring this to the attention of the people that matter???
I can't get over the fact that this poor girl saved long and hard for the air fare of which was $600!!! What a holiday!!! 20 hours of flying and another 15 hours of passing through and waiting around airports - Bargain!!!!! Surely the airline should be bought to task over not giving enough information. Maybe the safety of booking through Travel Agents will start to come back into fashion!! Then you've got someone real to blame instead of a computer screen!!!
Maybe its time more checking was done on passengers at the start of the journey. At least that way if something was wrong it could be corrected and you could travel knowing you would reach your destination and be able to stay there. If these customs officers are so highly trained they should surely be aware of what is required for every entry port?? So, if documentation was missing or health requirements not adhered to you would know before you started your long journey? Why would that be so difficult?
Hey ho more comments would be appreciated!!
Off to the pub to put the world to rights!!!
Ha ha ha Rothin I never thought of that but I think thats exactly what my son was probably doing before he met "the one"!!! Well, not in the airport back room offices but possibly on the wonderful beaches!!!
He too was questioned at LA border on arrival earlier this year simply because I suppose he is young and he is a boy and probably because .....well as you said who would want to live in England really if you've got the chance to be there with sun sea and.....enough said!!! They would have more reason to question him but it was over with very quickly and allowed to pass through. His return ticket was for nearly 3 months but that wasn't really questioned because as I said before they accept that when someone has just flown all that way they want to make the most of it. She was only going to be here 8 weeks and they weren't even going to be staying in the UK for most of that time!!
Are we just old fashioned here? The UK border agency whilst questioning my son after interviewing his girlfriend asked him why he was able to stay in LA for that amount of time?? Are they mad?? Most young people take time out - so do some of us oldies come to think of it - what is so bad about that???
It doesn't surprise me some of the answers I have had back that others have experienced this. I just wish there was something that could be done about it - any ideas anyone?? I read a thread further up where someone said we all sit back and say yes sir, yes please, bring it on and never do we complain - well, we do but its usually on forum's like this or in the pub but where do we actually go to bring this to the attention of the people that matter???
I can't get over the fact that this poor girl saved long and hard for the air fare of which was $600!!! What a holiday!!! 20 hours of flying and another 15 hours of passing through and waiting around airports - Bargain!!!!! Surely the airline should be bought to task over not giving enough information. Maybe the safety of booking through Travel Agents will start to come back into fashion!! Then you've got someone real to blame instead of a computer screen!!!
Maybe its time more checking was done on passengers at the start of the journey. At least that way if something was wrong it could be corrected and you could travel knowing you would reach your destination and be able to stay there. If these customs officers are so highly trained they should surely be aware of what is required for every entry port?? So, if documentation was missing or health requirements not adhered to you would know before you started your long journey? Why would that be so difficult?
Hey ho more comments would be appreciated!!
Off to the pub to put the world to rights!!!
However much sympathy I may feel for the young lady and whatever my own issues with UKBA I feel that we can only receive a one sided view of the incident here. As such any judgement about the rights and wrongs of the case will be flawed.
I would, however, take issue with one statement:
as she hadn't printed off her return ticket (which by the way isn't always possible as you can only do this within a set period prior to flying online)
That is plain wrong. It is ALWAYS possible to get a copy of the ticket at any time after it has been booked and issued. If you don't know how then phone the travel agency or airline. With the possible exception of domestic travel or travel within Schengen it is a requirement that you carry a copy of your ticket (not the itinerary - the ticket showing the ticket number, fare, flights, endorsements etc). In the end this is the only immediate "proof" that the immigration officer has of your intention to leave the country you are trying to enter.
I would, however, take issue with one statement:
as she hadn't printed off her return ticket (which by the way isn't always possible as you can only do this within a set period prior to flying online)
That is plain wrong. It is ALWAYS possible to get a copy of the ticket at any time after it has been booked and issued. If you don't know how then phone the travel agency or airline. With the possible exception of domestic travel or travel within Schengen it is a requirement that you carry a copy of your ticket (not the itinerary - the ticket showing the ticket number, fare, flights, endorsements etc). In the end this is the only immediate "proof" that the immigration officer has of your intention to leave the country you are trying to enter.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if the Immigration Officer had been in a better mood he could have called the airline, confirmed the return ticket was booked, given some advice on the paperwork to bring next time and welcomed her to the UK. It would have delayed her about 10 minutes. What happened instead is despicable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hartington
I strongly suspect that the document that the lady couldn't print off except within a certain time before the flight is her boarding pass, and that this is being confused with the booking confirmation, which is in turn being confused with a "ticket".
Noting that the UK is outside the Schengen area, and that all you get from most airlines' websites is the booking confirmation with a reference and information about what you paid and why, T&Cs etc etc, you are not entirely correct in your assertions about "tickets".
And, do you know the downside of always looking for the "other side" of a perfectly clear story, and thus being permanently perched on a fence?
Your testicles atrophy. (Well, they do if you're a male.)
The lady was treated appallingly badly. There is not "other side" to that fact.
Whatever the reason for her detention and deportation, the UKBA's behaviour and treatment of her should result in criminal charges aganist those involved. If the detention and deportation were not justified, that would make it all a whole lot worse.
Unfortunately the UKBA's track record leads us to assume that it was probably not justified; but that is not the issue here.
I strongly suspect that the document that the lady couldn't print off except within a certain time before the flight is her boarding pass, and that this is being confused with the booking confirmation, which is in turn being confused with a "ticket".
Noting that the UK is outside the Schengen area, and that all you get from most airlines' websites is the booking confirmation with a reference and information about what you paid and why, T&Cs etc etc, you are not entirely correct in your assertions about "tickets".
And, do you know the downside of always looking for the "other side" of a perfectly clear story, and thus being permanently perched on a fence?
Your testicles atrophy. (Well, they do if you're a male.)
The lady was treated appallingly badly. There is not "other side" to that fact.
Whatever the reason for her detention and deportation, the UKBA's behaviour and treatment of her should result in criminal charges aganist those involved. If the detention and deportation were not justified, that would make it all a whole lot worse.
Unfortunately the UKBA's track record leads us to assume that it was probably not justified; but that is not the issue here.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot,
Your views are based on assumptions. What facts can you bring to the arena. What first hand information do you have access to? I will answer that for you none. If she did not satisfy the immigration rules you do not get in, or what is the point of having them. It was a bit harsh that she was detained pending the removal, but one again the facts are not available for us to make judgment. Why should UKBA's behaviour and treatment be questioned when exercising the law.
Capot says "My lord we should bring criminal proceeding against the UKBA?" Why asked the Judge. Capot says 'It is not right!' The Judge asks present your evidence Capot. Capot replies "What evidence!"
Things are not perfect at the border, but at least give them the opportunity to be fairly judged. People in public office who then do break the law should then be punished.
Montag,
The onus on the passenger to provide the relevant documentation when seeking entry into the UK.
Regards
Davedog
Your views are based on assumptions. What facts can you bring to the arena. What first hand information do you have access to? I will answer that for you none. If she did not satisfy the immigration rules you do not get in, or what is the point of having them. It was a bit harsh that she was detained pending the removal, but one again the facts are not available for us to make judgment. Why should UKBA's behaviour and treatment be questioned when exercising the law.
Capot says "My lord we should bring criminal proceeding against the UKBA?" Why asked the Judge. Capot says 'It is not right!' The Judge asks present your evidence Capot. Capot replies "What evidence!"
Things are not perfect at the border, but at least give them the opportunity to be fairly judged. People in public office who then do break the law should then be punished.
Montag,
The onus on the passenger to provide the relevant documentation when seeking entry into the UK.
Regards
Davedog
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On everyone of my numerous trips to the US - roughly once a month on average some times over the past 12 years I have without fail been treated with politeness and respect and mostly cheerful INS/customs staff.
I wish I could say the same about my returns to the UK...
HTC.
British citizen, non green card holder/alien
I wish I could say the same about my returns to the UK...
HTC.
British citizen, non green card holder/alien
Capot, I'm not sitting on the fence. If I had both sides of the story and refused to make a judgement then you could accuse me of fence sitting, etc. I have one side of the story and without the other I simply refuse to make a judgement.
As far as documentation is concerned I think you are probably correct to the extent that people in general fail to distinguish between a boarding pass, a ticket, a confirmation and an itinerary (there are probably more terms/documents but I can't think of more right now).
What you seem to fail to understand is that if you are travelling with an IATA airline (and she almost certainly was) then resolution 722 requires the agent/airline to provide a paper copy of the e-ticket. It very carefully lays out what data items that document shall contain. I don't have the exact wording to hand because I'm currently in the US.
There is always a way of getting hold of a copy of that document before you leave and I strongly recommend you do so. I have recently entered Hong Kong, New Zealand and the USA. Hong Kong and New Zealand didn't ask for my ticket, USA did. Because I had my copy I had no hassle but I'm aware of people who, because they did not have the paper copy were deported from the USA. The story I was told was that the sole reason for refusal of entry was lack of an e-ticket piece of paper - I have no way of knowing the truth of the statement.
In the past I have been asked for tickets in several countries. It used to be easy; to travel you had to have a ticket ergo (unless you lost it) you were able to produce it to immigration. Nowadays with e-tickets problems such as the one we are discussing do occur. Although the airline has to provide you a copy it is your responsibility to make sure you have a copy of the document to present on request/demand.
If you want me to speculate I would guess that the inability of the young lady to produce the e-ticket was simply one item in a chain that caused UKBA to refuse entry.
As far as documentation is concerned I think you are probably correct to the extent that people in general fail to distinguish between a boarding pass, a ticket, a confirmation and an itinerary (there are probably more terms/documents but I can't think of more right now).
What you seem to fail to understand is that if you are travelling with an IATA airline (and she almost certainly was) then resolution 722 requires the agent/airline to provide a paper copy of the e-ticket. It very carefully lays out what data items that document shall contain. I don't have the exact wording to hand because I'm currently in the US.
There is always a way of getting hold of a copy of that document before you leave and I strongly recommend you do so. I have recently entered Hong Kong, New Zealand and the USA. Hong Kong and New Zealand didn't ask for my ticket, USA did. Because I had my copy I had no hassle but I'm aware of people who, because they did not have the paper copy were deported from the USA. The story I was told was that the sole reason for refusal of entry was lack of an e-ticket piece of paper - I have no way of knowing the truth of the statement.
In the past I have been asked for tickets in several countries. It used to be easy; to travel you had to have a ticket ergo (unless you lost it) you were able to produce it to immigration. Nowadays with e-tickets problems such as the one we are discussing do occur. Although the airline has to provide you a copy it is your responsibility to make sure you have a copy of the document to present on request/demand.
If you want me to speculate I would guess that the inability of the young lady to produce the e-ticket was simply one item in a chain that caused UKBA to refuse entry.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davedoq and Hartington,
You've missed the point I was making.
Here it is again......
The detailed description of the lady's treatment rings true, I am afraid, and is sufficient evidence for me.
It is the treatment meted out to her (and all other detainees and deportees) that is so appalling, not the fact that she was detained and deported. Although my suspicion is that this was not justified under the law, I'm happy to wait to see if someone can prove that it was.
Incidentally, I enjoyed the way that your admonishment for making assumptions is followed by
You've missed the point I was making.
Here it is again......
Whatever the reason for her detention and deportation, the UKBA's behaviour and treatment of her should result in criminal charges
It is the treatment meted out to her (and all other detainees and deportees) that is so appalling, not the fact that she was detained and deported. Although my suspicion is that this was not justified under the law, I'm happy to wait to see if someone can prove that it was.
Incidentally, I enjoyed the way that your admonishment for making assumptions is followed by
What first hand information do you have access to? I will answer that for you none.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Foxxy - you really lucked out - fancy coming to a pilots forum for a moan about immigration.....
So, and with respect, some questions for context if you don't mind?
1) Which part of a passport contains the details of return ticketing?
2) As you clearly had access to the officers contemporanous notes from the interview he/she conducted, your sons friend will have signed them to confirm they were accurate as well, was she asked similar questions to those that your son was asked and that were also recorded for the record?
3) Did those answers match? You say they did but where is your evidence? That's a rhetorical question.
4) Your assertion that some officers are 'under the thumb' at home is based on what exactly? (Have you met my wife for example?)
That part of your argument is rather amusing and true of my wife. 
But seriously, we are subject to the same complaints procedures as the police, it's just not worth the aggro of an investigation.
5) HMRC Officers do not conduct 'refuse leave to enter' casework.
6) The 'caged truck' is nothing of the sort. I presume you saw it and rode in it? Or was it what you were told? The cage is where the luggage usually goes. It is locked but that's because its used in an airside environment and around the aprons.
7) The overnight facility at LHR is what the prisons inspector (who sadly has responsibility for this part of the detention estate) has deemed suitable for such purposes, it is reviewed regularly and sometimes it is criticised and remedial work has to be undertaken. 'Detention' was authorised because apparently she was in breach of the immigration rules and not admissible to the UK and her return to her point of embarkation was imminent. Therefore, are you suggesting that there should be a tiered system for sorting out detention for some and hotels for others? How would that work? Who would pay for it?
8) Is it not reasonable for her to have sought advice on what the entry requirements were for the UK for someone in her position, where any doubt existed, is it reasonable that she obtained a visa before she left? Because this is possible. I've done it myself in my gap year many, many years ago.
What happened, if it happened and feel free to read between the lines, was unfortunate for her. Her credibility, the basis of an immigration officers work in such cases, was questionable from the sounds of it. But what happened is fully auditable if you have her permission and she wishes to follow up on it. If you are unhappy abut the officers conduct, you should complain. If you want an explanation of the decision, you are entitled to it with her help, if you have issues with what happened to her post refusal then you have the right to take it up. I have to be honest though, it sounds all a bit far fetched and I still don't understand why you've ended up on this website given your limited posting history. C'est La Vie though.
Your last paragraph is interesting;
Any response or similar experiences would be welcome. I feel the need to make a complaint about this. I don't think anyone knows what is happening to unsuspecting visitors who are denied entry. This must be against Human Rights surely?? Criminals actually do get treated better!!
1) Who have you complained to within UKBA? (other than to the users of a specialist website - PPRUNE)
2) I think people are well aware of what happens to those who are inadmissible to the UK, does anyone else think they go to 5 star hotels? Or do they get held in situ and removed at the first opportunity? Or is it easier to not think about it?
3) Which Human Right are we talking about?
4) Criminals are treated within the rule of law as would have been your sons friend - if not - you know what you must do.
Best,
QP
So, and with respect, some questions for context if you don't mind?
1) Which part of a passport contains the details of return ticketing?
2) As you clearly had access to the officers contemporanous notes from the interview he/she conducted, your sons friend will have signed them to confirm they were accurate as well, was she asked similar questions to those that your son was asked and that were also recorded for the record?
3) Did those answers match? You say they did but where is your evidence? That's a rhetorical question.
4) Your assertion that some officers are 'under the thumb' at home is based on what exactly? (Have you met my wife for example?)
That part of your argument is rather amusing and true of my wife. But seriously, we are subject to the same complaints procedures as the police, it's just not worth the aggro of an investigation. 5) HMRC Officers do not conduct 'refuse leave to enter' casework.
6) The 'caged truck' is nothing of the sort. I presume you saw it and rode in it? Or was it what you were told? The cage is where the luggage usually goes. It is locked but that's because its used in an airside environment and around the aprons.
7) The overnight facility at LHR is what the prisons inspector (who sadly has responsibility for this part of the detention estate) has deemed suitable for such purposes, it is reviewed regularly and sometimes it is criticised and remedial work has to be undertaken. 'Detention' was authorised because apparently she was in breach of the immigration rules and not admissible to the UK and her return to her point of embarkation was imminent. Therefore, are you suggesting that there should be a tiered system for sorting out detention for some and hotels for others? How would that work? Who would pay for it?
8) Is it not reasonable for her to have sought advice on what the entry requirements were for the UK for someone in her position, where any doubt existed, is it reasonable that she obtained a visa before she left? Because this is possible. I've done it myself in my gap year many, many years ago.
What happened, if it happened and feel free to read between the lines, was unfortunate for her. Her credibility, the basis of an immigration officers work in such cases, was questionable from the sounds of it. But what happened is fully auditable if you have her permission and she wishes to follow up on it. If you are unhappy abut the officers conduct, you should complain. If you want an explanation of the decision, you are entitled to it with her help, if you have issues with what happened to her post refusal then you have the right to take it up. I have to be honest though, it sounds all a bit far fetched and I still don't understand why you've ended up on this website given your limited posting history. C'est La Vie though.
Your last paragraph is interesting;
Any response or similar experiences would be welcome. I feel the need to make a complaint about this. I don't think anyone knows what is happening to unsuspecting visitors who are denied entry. This must be against Human Rights surely?? Criminals actually do get treated better!!
1) Who have you complained to within UKBA? (other than to the users of a specialist website - PPRUNE)
2) I think people are well aware of what happens to those who are inadmissible to the UK, does anyone else think they go to 5 star hotels? Or do they get held in situ and removed at the first opportunity? Or is it easier to not think about it?
3) Which Human Right are we talking about?
4) Criminals are treated within the rule of law as would have been your sons friend - if not - you know what you must do.
Best,
QP
Last edited by qwertyplop; 23rd Mar 2009 at 20:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Montag wrote;
You have to wonder what sort of person denies someone entry, merely because they can. Or what sort of person would choose to make a career out of treating people like this merely on grounds or their race, nationality or justified by some minor paperwork error. They behave like this because they answer to no-one - often there is no-one in the UK to speak up for their victims.
The actions of the UK Border Agency and its employees make me deeply ashamed to be British.
Balderdash Montag, cockwaffle in fact.
No-one can be refused entry on the grounds that the officer can and simply will.
It has to be authorised and each decision is checked and double checked and it has to comply with the immigration rules. If it is wrong, it is overturned and decisions do get overturned. My colleagues and I are answerable to EVERY court in the land in additon to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, internal regulation and external scrutiny.
How much oversight do we need?
More?
Exactly what?
Over to you.....
Best,
QP
You have to wonder what sort of person denies someone entry, merely because they can. Or what sort of person would choose to make a career out of treating people like this merely on grounds or their race, nationality or justified by some minor paperwork error. They behave like this because they answer to no-one - often there is no-one in the UK to speak up for their victims.
The actions of the UK Border Agency and its employees make me deeply ashamed to be British.
Balderdash Montag, cockwaffle in fact.
No-one can be refused entry on the grounds that the officer can and simply will.
It has to be authorised and each decision is checked and double checked and it has to comply with the immigration rules. If it is wrong, it is overturned and decisions do get overturned. My colleagues and I are answerable to EVERY court in the land in additon to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, internal regulation and external scrutiny.
How much oversight do we need?
More?
Exactly what?
Over to you.....
Best,
QP
Last edited by qwertyplop; 23rd Mar 2009 at 20:59.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously there is some discretion because it is possible to be refused entry at one port and admitted at another twenty-four hours later, with exactly the same account and documents. In the case of Foxxy's son's girlfriend that discretion was used to refuse her, unless you disbelieve Foxxy's account, for failing to bring a paper copy of an e-ticket; even though the return booking could be confirmed by the airline.
That a decision may be checked within UKBA can give no confidence whatsoever, and the right to make an application to a court is of little use to someone who has already been removed and can not find the costs of instructing a solicitor in London. At least if you are in the UK you can make an court application in person (assuming you are not languishing in one of our ever increasing number of immigration prisons, about which Ms Owers is frequently rightfully scathing), have access to legal aid and to a number of organisations which can assist.
The only oversight which I could see being effective is for UKBA to have no powers to refuse, detain or remove anyone without the consent of a court hearing, at which the subject would be represented, at the taxpayers expense where necessary. Of course it would then be necessary to admit arrivals and summon them to get them into court, but that would give them time to take advice and prepare their cases. The magistrates courts seem capable of getting people to turn up when summoned, and one imagines that failure to wouldn't help any subsequent application for leave to remain.
The real problem is that the great British people are non too keen on immigration, and perceive the 40 minute queue at Heathrow, surly immigration officers and the ever increasing number of immigration prisons as the Government being tough on immigration, without seeing the human cost or the cost to the UK's international reputation.
I do hope that Foxxy and her son's girlfriend pursue a complaint or litigation against the UKBA and the individual officers involved in her son's girlfriend's mistreatment, with appropriate legal support. She may well want to put this behind her and never visit the UK again, but if faceless officials are not held to account for their actions there will be nothing to discourage them from acting in this way again. A successful action would be a small step in the right direction.
That a decision may be checked within UKBA can give no confidence whatsoever, and the right to make an application to a court is of little use to someone who has already been removed and can not find the costs of instructing a solicitor in London. At least if you are in the UK you can make an court application in person (assuming you are not languishing in one of our ever increasing number of immigration prisons, about which Ms Owers is frequently rightfully scathing), have access to legal aid and to a number of organisations which can assist.
The only oversight which I could see being effective is for UKBA to have no powers to refuse, detain or remove anyone without the consent of a court hearing, at which the subject would be represented, at the taxpayers expense where necessary. Of course it would then be necessary to admit arrivals and summon them to get them into court, but that would give them time to take advice and prepare their cases. The magistrates courts seem capable of getting people to turn up when summoned, and one imagines that failure to wouldn't help any subsequent application for leave to remain.
The real problem is that the great British people are non too keen on immigration, and perceive the 40 minute queue at Heathrow, surly immigration officers and the ever increasing number of immigration prisons as the Government being tough on immigration, without seeing the human cost or the cost to the UK's international reputation.
I do hope that Foxxy and her son's girlfriend pursue a complaint or litigation against the UKBA and the individual officers involved in her son's girlfriend's mistreatment, with appropriate legal support. She may well want to put this behind her and never visit the UK again, but if faceless officials are not held to account for their actions there will be nothing to discourage them from acting in this way again. A successful action would be a small step in the right direction.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Montag,
When I read your initial post, I suspected that there might be some underlying agenda to it and your clear response (thank you) makes me think I was right. It all sounds very 'No Borders'. Your proposal to cause a massive blockage in the criminal justice system makes your proposition unwieldy and unworkable.
.
This one paragraph is interesting to say the least. As a taxpayer myself, I would not be happy to fund such an arrangement and where the case justifies the action, temporary admission is already an option that is used now to great effect. Some comply and some do not. Why would your proposal be any more effective? If you were minded to come here and work, then so long as you don't get caught, you don't have a worry. Court or port absconder, the details of the offence committed by not returning to port or court are circulated in the same way. I'm unsighted as to why you think your way is any better other than to remove the mark one eyeball at the border that would stop an on-entry issue becoming an in-country issue.
And if you think granting everyone entry on the basis that they'll turn up in a court at a pre-determined date in the future to hear that they will be refused entry and removed that day would work, then please can you explain why there are so many absconders from our controls who were asked to do the exact same thing as a condition of their entry to the UK by returning to port on the day their ticket expired? Why did I spend 2 years of my formative early career working with the police to round up such miscreants? By that stage, many, NOT ALL OBVIOUSLY, had become involved in criminality and a burden to the community around them.
I think that a healthy debate around the issue of how we conduct our duties is correct incidentally. I also like to think I'm pretty open minded about my work, but I can't get my head around the practicalities of your post. You mention that UKBA's work shames you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I could mention the good work we do in terms of rescuing victims of trafficking, child exploitation and all of the myriads of criminal activity we disrupt and report upon but I suspect you would not be interested though. C'est la vie.
Yours aye,
QP
When I read your initial post, I suspected that there might be some underlying agenda to it and your clear response (thank you) makes me think I was right. It all sounds very 'No Borders'. Your proposal to cause a massive blockage in the criminal justice system makes your proposition unwieldy and unworkable.
The only oversight which I could see being effective is for UKBA to have no powers to refuse, detain or remove anyone without the consent of a court hearing, at which the subject would be represented, at the taxpayers expense where necessary. Of course it would then be necessary to admit arrivals and summon them to get them into court, but that would give them time to take advice and prepare their cases. The magistrates courts seem capable of getting people to turn up when summoned, and one imagines that failure to wouldn't help any subsequent application for leave to remain
This one paragraph is interesting to say the least. As a taxpayer myself, I would not be happy to fund such an arrangement and where the case justifies the action, temporary admission is already an option that is used now to great effect. Some comply and some do not. Why would your proposal be any more effective? If you were minded to come here and work, then so long as you don't get caught, you don't have a worry. Court or port absconder, the details of the offence committed by not returning to port or court are circulated in the same way. I'm unsighted as to why you think your way is any better other than to remove the mark one eyeball at the border that would stop an on-entry issue becoming an in-country issue.
And if you think granting everyone entry on the basis that they'll turn up in a court at a pre-determined date in the future to hear that they will be refused entry and removed that day would work, then please can you explain why there are so many absconders from our controls who were asked to do the exact same thing as a condition of their entry to the UK by returning to port on the day their ticket expired? Why did I spend 2 years of my formative early career working with the police to round up such miscreants? By that stage, many, NOT ALL OBVIOUSLY, had become involved in criminality and a burden to the community around them.
I think that a healthy debate around the issue of how we conduct our duties is correct incidentally. I also like to think I'm pretty open minded about my work, but I can't get my head around the practicalities of your post. You mention that UKBA's work shames you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I could mention the good work we do in terms of rescuing victims of trafficking, child exploitation and all of the myriads of criminal activity we disrupt and report upon but I suspect you would not be interested though. C'est la vie.
Yours aye,
QP
Last edited by qwertyplop; 25th Mar 2009 at 06:33.
I'd like to come back to the original point, if I may.
Yesterday at 1000 hrs I entered the UK through T1 at Heathrow. I was very pleasantly surprised. It's maybe 2 years since I used T1 when the queue was long and slow and the environment cramped. Yesterday the queue was non existent and what have they done with the immigration hall?
Now for the caveats.
1) We were first off our flight and I can only assume that there was no flight immediately in front of us.
2) Despite the fact that we got through quickly there were only 2 officers dealing with EU/UK entries and I can't help wondering what happened to the queue as soon as the bulk of the load on our aircraft arrived.
3) Despite the fact that the hall felt new the signage on the front of the inspectors desks looked like a "scratcher" had been at work (you know - delete a letter from a standard word to make a rude one).
and on a different note
When is the baggage hall at T1 due for improvement? (Maybe that's the subject of a separate thread).
Yesterday at 1000 hrs I entered the UK through T1 at Heathrow. I was very pleasantly surprised. It's maybe 2 years since I used T1 when the queue was long and slow and the environment cramped. Yesterday the queue was non existent and what have they done with the immigration hall?
Now for the caveats.
1) We were first off our flight and I can only assume that there was no flight immediately in front of us.
2) Despite the fact that we got through quickly there were only 2 officers dealing with EU/UK entries and I can't help wondering what happened to the queue as soon as the bulk of the load on our aircraft arrived.
3) Despite the fact that the hall felt new the signage on the front of the inspectors desks looked like a "scratcher" had been at work (you know - delete a letter from a standard word to make a rude one).
and on a different note
When is the baggage hall at T1 due for improvement? (Maybe that's the subject of a separate thread).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROI/Domestic arrivals at LGW South
Out of idle curiosity – why do all arrivals from domestic or Irish flights have to be funnelled through the single file bypass corridor? At around 2.15pm daily, there are two Ryanair arrivals from Ireland and occasional Flybe/other domestic arrivals, disgorging around 300-400pax within 20 mins or so (it happens at other times of the day too). There is then a HUGE queue to go through the single manned domestic/ROI arrival channel whilst the UK Border Control desks lie empty, with staff even re-directing passport holders back to the domestic bypass channel and then sitting (smirking) watching the queue build up. There is always a holdup as many people have passports ready for inspection, rather than the remnant boarding card. It seems a ludicrous situation and I’m tempted to ask why UK/EU citizens showing valid passports are being denied entry to the UK via the main Border Control point. Many people have taken to ‘losing’ their boarding cards so they have to go via Passport Control and skip the queue.