Hazard For Brits Returning To UK

[TC1]

On my recent return to the UK I had an unpleasant experience that I feel should be brought to the attention of all British nationals. It can perhaps best be explained by the following copy of my letter:

To: Chief Officer, UK Border Agency, Manchester Airport.

Statement of events:

At approximately 07-40 on Thursday 24^th October 2013 I arrived from Bangkok via Dubai at Terminal 1 of Manchester airport and, having only hand-luggage, proceeded through the ‘Nothing to Declare’ exit. I had cleared the area but was chased by a female customs officer, who asked me if I was with a nearby woman. On being told I was not, the officer asked me (by command) to accompany her back to the customs area.

During a search of my small case and computer bag I co-operated politely for in excess of one hour, by which time repeated banal questions regarding the minutia of my life and repeated puzzled looks at my few possessions became tiresome and silly. Indeed, a few prescription-only sleeping pills caused the officer no concern, whereas a sheet of paper that she unfolded and examined at least 3 times was a print-out of keyboard codes NOT for national secrets or details of some paedophile ring, but Facebook ‘smileys’.

The officer who mostly conducted the search appeared totally perplexed that she had not found what she appeared to be certain she would find, and I was told that certain items were to be seized. These included my 2 laptop computers (used for daily work and play), a flash drive that contain all my ongoing written works plus those over the last 15 years, camera and mobile phone. I offered to show the contents of all but this was declined by a 2^nd and older female officer who had hovered over the proceedings and, in my view, caused what had descended into a farce. When I told her that she had a bad attitude, her smug response, accompanied by a little jig, was: “You should see me on a bad day.”

I was given NO REASON WHATSOEVER for the cause of the seizure other than as stated in the notice “for further examination regarding their contact” (I think ‘content’ was intended), and I pointed out that it amounted to the fact than NO BRITISH SUBJECT’S PERSONAL & PRIVATE POSSESSIONS ARE SAFE from indiscriminate seizure by over-zealous or plain vindictive border officials. This was met with a shrug and “if that’s how you want to see it”. I witnessed another chap also having his laptop seized. His ‘crime’ was having 200 extra cigarettes, but that was not the cause of the seizure. The customs’ own leaflet regarding seizure clearly states that a reason for it must be given.

It may be that the primary objective of these officers is to find contraband but, when this not achieved, the compensatory objective of some is to cause as much inconvenience and irritation to their ‘victim’ as they possibly can. All travellers surely need to be made aware that their personal recording devices are subject to what is no less than Gestapo-like tyranny. It is not hard to imagine the response on forums if a report of such action by Thai officials against a foreigner was posted.

I believe single male travellers have become the target for what is the 21^st century equivalent of 17^th century witch-hunts. I have nothing to fear in the contents of my devices being examined, and have initiated court proceedings to have the seizure declared an abuse of human rights and illegal. I also propose to seek an injunction against the Border Agency to put a halt to this sort of despicable conduct.

I am happy to answer any questions on this matter, and ask anyone who has been similarly treated to inbox me. Confidentiality will be respected.

1. Crossley

Suitable quote: ‘Uniformed authority is a steering device that rarely has a proper connection to the wheels.’ (TC)

[CharlieH]

Seems indeed you had a rough ride, but not being present its hard to judge exactly what happened and what was the motivation. It reads unfair conduct but doubt if the officers were trying to be deliberately awkward as that would be pointless and may be I respectfully suggest, be a reaction to your disposition. A lot can be said non verbally by expression body language , tone etc and who knows how that may have been interpreted.

It may also be and I stress "may" have been as a result of an internal directive to check computer devices more thoroughly no one can say for sure.

Clearly you were upset and felt victimised, that in itself is a reason to complain. I am sure you are doing the right thing by complaining in that manner and through the correct procedure, I hope it works out for you although I suspect you will be given some official jargon that you cannit argue against and summarily dismissed. I hope yiu get chance to post the next episode as to what the response actually was.

Good luck with it.

[uptheos]

When did you get the seized stuff back?

What was the point of this, why mention Thai?.......just curious.

"It is not hard to imagine the response on forums if a report of such action by Thai officials against a foreigner was posted".

[TC1]

Thanks for your response Charlie, but guessing that the officers 'reacted' to my disposition is irrelevant. Either behaviour is abusive, which may be countered by appropriate action, or it is not. The point here is that any officer may seize the personal possessions of any national re-entering the country on any pretext. An internal directive to 'check devices more thoroughly' is one thing, but to seize them for any amount of time is something else altogether and is directly opposed to the stated written policy. Basically, an officer who has an aversion to bald men, or long-haired men etc., etc., may exercise his prejudice against them. The point of my post is that YOU (or any reader) could be next.

[CharlieH]

This may be of interest to others..........taken from Human rights article regarding Customs

A request to search you does not mean that you are under arrest; it means that you are to be detained whilst a search is carried out. If you are placed under arrest, you must be told.

Length of Detention

How long you may be detained for will depend on the circumstances, but in all circumstances the length of detention must be reasonable and not exceed the time taken for the actual search, which is usually completed in under ten minutes. If you decide to leave before being searched, the customs officer may let you go or you may be arrested. You may also be charged with the offence of obstructing or impeding a customs officer.

What amounts to reasonable suspicion?

This may be of use to some........

A customs officer does not have to be certain that you are carrying an uunlawful item in order to justify a search. But there must be some concrete basis for the officers suspicion, which relates to you. The mere fact that you have arrived from a particular destination, that you are dressed in a certain way or that you are carrying particular items such as condoms, cigarette papers or petroleum jelly, which could be associated with drug use or drug trafficking, is not in itself sufficient justification. However, a combination of these or other facts, such as suspicious behaviour, an unusual quantity of luggage, unexplained journeys abroad, etc., may give rise to enough reasonable suspicion to justify you being searched.

What must you be told?

The customs officer must tell you what you are suspected of: for example, I have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying illegal drugs. Although you should ask why you are suspected of a particular offence, the customs officer does not, in fact, have to tell you.

Edited November 1, 2013 by CharlieH

[TC1]

@uptheos. I have not yet got my stuff back. On the very day the Border Agency received my Notice of Prosecution, they called me about identifying my computer. It seems they have seized so many that they can't keep track of them, Why mention Thai? On any given news report about something negative about Thailand or its people, there is a type of expat or regular visitor who will charge in and stereotype all Thais to that bad example, as if the country they left is perfect. This syndrome is based on the person's need for a sense of national superiority to the one they have chosed to live in/marry into. But that's another subject.

[TC1]

@CharlieH. Yes, I have read what you posted and it suggests that British nationals entering the UK are not being treated in accordance with that directive. Neither myself nor the other chap were told we were suspected of anything. Inference of the seizures is that all people passing over the border are suspected of something - anything.

[uptheos]

I guess it will all be on video, will you be requesting this?

Maybe coming from Thailand with only hand luggage raises a red flag. I don't really know why it would, just guessing.

Edited November 1, 2013 by uptheos

[thonglorjimmy]

Clearly you are very upset over your alleged treatment and the seizure of your goods, that is very clear from your statement, obviously I wasn't there so I will not comment about who may have been right or wrong.

You mention something about a "Notice of Prosecution" I'm not sure what that actually means, does that mean you have instigated Criminal or Civil Proceedings or have you formally complained via the UKV&I or HMRC complaints procedures or maybe sought restoration of your goods.

Like others I will watch how this unravels with interest and I wish you well.

[FiftyTwo]

Thanks for your response Charlie, but guessing that the officers 'reacted' to my disposition is irrelevant. Either behaviour is abusive, which may be countered by appropriate action, or it is not. The point here is that any officer may seize the personal possessions of any national re-entering the country on any pretext. An internal directive to 'check devices more thoroughly' is one thing, but to seize them for any amount of time is something else altogether and is directly opposed to the stated written policy. Basically, an officer who has an aversion to bald men, or long-haired men etc., etc., may exercise his prejudice against them. The point of my post is that YOU (or any reader) could be next.

You matched the description of a paedophile on their 'watch' list.

Best never to reveal anything personal when questioned by officials anywhere.

'loose lips sinks ships' as they used to say.

[Briggsy]

Let us know when you get your stuff back and if it is damaged, physically or in terms of memory.

[uptheos]

Some strange goings on at Manchester Airport

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2482426/Why-did-self-styled-lady-manor-strip-airport-security.html

[TC1]

@thonglorjimmy. I have intiated what is called 'Condemnation Proceedings', which seeks a court order that the seizure was illegal. I have also issued a 'Claim for Restoration'. I assure you there is no doubt in my mind who was wrong - it would seem as a matter of policy.

@Fifty Two. "You matched the description of a paedophile on their 'watch' list." I doubt any of us do not match the description of some paedophile on watch lists. In any event, the other chap couldn't be more different than me in appearance.

[FiftyTwo]

@thonglorjimmy. I have intiated what is called 'Condemnation Proceedings', which seeks a court order that the seizure was illegal. I have also issued a 'Claim for Restoration'. I assure you there is no doubt in my mind who was wrong - it would seem as a matter of policy.

@Fifty Two. "You matched the description of a paedophile on their 'watch' list." I doubt any of us do not match the description of some paedophile on watch lists. In any event, the other chap couldn't be more different than me in appearance.

or general tip-off on a paedophile with just the flight given.

The data seizing is a paedophile thing, they put dirty pictures in hidden directories.

Your topic title is a bit misleading as it isn't a general hazard for Brits.

It's a hazard for single elderly males carrying data sources.

Women, young guys and couples would have not been affected.

Older guys with no laptops or thumb drives would not be affected.

Edited November 1, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[h90]

Some times ago it was in the news that UK changed the law so they can check the content and take all electronic equipment like the USA does.

Welcome in the new world order.......

[maprao]

Could start another thread. Reasons to stay in Thailand and link it to this one

[TC1]

@FiftyTwo: "Your topic title is a bit misleading as it isn't a general hazard for Brits.
It's a hazard for single elderly males carrying data sources.

Women, young guys and couples would have not been affected.
Older guys with no laptops or thumb drives would not be affected."

That is a tunnel-vision assumption by you, and that profiles single men. The latter itself is an outrageous abuse. FACT is that if international law is being blatantly flouted by the UK Border Agency, as the info provided above by CharlieH confirms, ANYBODY is at risk of being a victim of some officer who got out of bed the wrong side or with a bee in his/her bonnet about a particulat thing.

@h90: It appears you did not read what has been posted before. The CURRENT law requires a reason to be given for a seizure (as stated in the Border Agency's own brochure).

Edited November 1, 2013 by TC1

[arunsakda]

Much of this pretense of thourough and rigourous scrutiny is only to justify the need for increasing budgets and authority for the security and control state itself. If Manch airport does not detain a certain number of people everyday there would be no justification for all their staff, office space, and equipment. You are just a random victim of inconvenience. USA is the same with electronics, mostly they seem to be using it to hassle journalists. And being a citizen to be asked, in "the land of the free" these inane questions by jobsworths clearly well below my level in intellectual capacity is maddening. So are the unsmiling faces and general atmosphere of , I don't know, hostility, created by heavily armed, largely overweight and burly agents in paramiliatary uniform. Totally different than most other countries.

"Where are you coming from today?"

Chiang Mai, Thailand

"So who do you know in Taiwan?, isn't there alot of prostitution there?".

I didnt go to Taiwan, and I wouldn't know, why do you ask?

"I see Mr. Arunsakda, no reason, So how many times have you been to Taiwan?"

I didn't go to Taiwan.

More puzzled looks..

Or take this one, my US passport says place of birth ITALY.

"So when did you become naturalized as a US citizen".

Never, my parents were US citzens

"When did your parents become US citizens"

When they were born, in New York, in the 1930s.

"Ok, your Dad was in the Military"

No.

"So what were your parents doing in Italy when you were born?"

Realize this is after standing in a long long line after 12-13 hour flight. So in a light act of passive defiance I start a lucid discourse about how Dad was capable but screwed off at Uni with bad Grades, ended up working at the loading dock of Grandpa Ernie's paper supply business until Mum nagged him to get off his butt and do something with his life. Supposedly in those days one could get into Medical school overseas and then transfer back to the states. And Italy was cheap back then so I had a nanny and played with her kids all day so They said I could speak Italian, but when I came back at age 3 I forgot it all...

Now again I see the glazed puzzled looks in the agents eyes. He is obviously from the Phillipines or Latin America anyway, like 90% of the CPB in San Fran, and should understand anyway in modern times people mobile and are are born in various places for various reasons.

Now you can pay $100 for 5 years , give the govt. All this personal info they have about you already, an access an automated kiosk to avoid all the lines and blabber. If you give authority figures any attitude at all however they WILL ruin your day, just to show they can, so it is pointless to be anything other than be as cooperative as you can be. I know they have a job to do but there is a recent court case where a man in USA was denied law enforcement emplyment because he scored TOO HIGH on an IQ test. They are looking for robots who won' get bored with tedious work and quit, requiring training of a replacement.

[uptheos]

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_02_25/Outrageous-searches-on-UK-border-or-how-to-avoid-having-your-laptop-seized-by-airport-authorities-if-you-are-taken-for-a-terrorist/

[mickjn]

You offered to show them the contents.You offer them nothing and you say nothing.

Edited November 1, 2013 by metisdead

[TC1]

@mickjn: The items were already seized when the offer was made. To refuse to say anything could be interpreted as a reason for suspicion. FACT is, these officers apparently believe they are above the law. It remains to be seen if it is so,

Edited November 1, 2013 by TC1

[SolarGolf]

That sounds harsh - if they are going to search your belongings they should do so before letting you leave otherwise your belongings could easily disappear in some warehouse where all this stuff ends up.

I was once stopped at Heathrow for a cigarette check, asked where I came from and I showed them my e-cigarette. They were still interested in looking in my bag so I went to unlock it but they saw someone else they liked the look of (another solo passenger) and just told me to clear the area. Must be paid commission per bust or something...

[brucegoniners]

I see they have taken the US approach up another couple of notches.

When I used to travel here (prior to living here) and was single, every time I went through San Francisco airport coming home I was asked if they could look at my laptop and any external drives I had. However nothing was ever seized.

One time I had a couple of lesbian bitch officers give me a real hard time and I gave it back to them. I finally had to call over a manager who ushered me out and told the officers to back off. One of them said "if you aren't doing anything wrong why did you move out of the US"? I wanted to punch her.

I wrote a letter to USCIS and the searches came to an end.

About the same time I started traveling with my soon to be wife and that helped as well.

However then they started to get tough with her, asking her why she was coming to the states so much, etc.

One actually had the audacity to ask why we didn't get married. I was outside picking her up that time. If I would have been present I would have told them to mind their own damn business.

The bottom line is this. Western countries think every single man who travels to Thailand is a pedo, plain and simple. With the amount of sex tourism here I'm afraid it won't change anytime soon.

It would be nice if they worried more about terrorists and such, but I guess there are enough pedos around (see Pattaya) to cause us all to be hassled.

It's not right, it's just the way it is...

They have the power and they abuse it plenty.

[Baerboxer]

Much of this pretense of thourough and rigourous scrutiny is only to justify the need for increasing budgets and authority for the security and control state itself. If Manch airport does not detain a certain number of people everyday there would be no justification for all their staff, office space, and equipment. You are just a random victim of inconvenience. USA is the same with electronics, mostly they seem to be using it to hassle journalists. And being a citizen to be asked, in "the land of the free" these inane questions by jobsworths clearly well below my level in intellectual capacity is maddening. So are the unsmiling faces and general atmosphere of , I don't know, hostility, created by heavily armed, largely overweight and burly agents in paramiliatary uniform. Totally different than most other countries.

"Where are you coming from today?"

Chiang Mai, Thailand

"So who do you know in Taiwan?, isn't there alot of prostitution there?".

I didnt go to Taiwan, and I wouldn't know, why do you ask?

"I see Mr. Arunsakda, no reason, So how many times have you been to Taiwan?"

I didn't go to Taiwan.

More puzzled looks..

Or take this one, my US passport says place of birth ITALY.

"So when did you become naturalized as a US citizen".

Never, my parents were US citzens

"When did your parents become US citizens"

When they were born, in New York, in the 1930s.

"Ok, your Dad was in the Military"

No.

"So what were your parents doing in Italy when you were born?"

Realize this is after standing in a long long line after 12-13 hour flight. So in a light act of passive defiance I start a lucid discourse about how Dad was capable but screwed off at Uni with bad Grades, ended up working at the loading dock of Grandpa Ernie's paper supply business until Mum nagged him to get off his butt and do something with his life. Supposedly in those days one could get into Medical school overseas and then transfer back to the states. And Italy was cheap back then so I had a nanny and played with her kids all day so They said I could speak Italian, but when I came back at age 3 I forgot it all...

Now again I see the glazed puzzled looks in the agents eyes. He is obviously from the Phillipines or Latin America anyway, like 90% of the CPB in San Fran, and should understand anyway in modern times people mobile and are are born in various places for various reasons.

Now you can pay $100 for 5 years , give the govt. All this personal info they have about you already, an access an automated kiosk to avoid all the lines and blabber. If you give authority figures any attitude at all however they WILL ruin your day, just to show they can, so it is pointless to be anything other than be as cooperative as you can be. I know they have a job to do but there is a recent court case where a man in USA was denied law enforcement emplyment because he scored TOO HIGH on an IQ test. They are looking for robots who won' get bored with tedious work and quit, requiring training of a replacement.

It's seems this behavior and strategy is becoming all to common in the so called "Western Democracies". The security guards at most British airports seem to all have low IQs, zero people skills, attitude problems, and many are cheap immigrant labor with little English language skills and little training. The Immigration and customs ain't much better either. Then they all watch too many reality TV shows about other similar idiots working in various other airports/countries and think they should all act the same.

Britain is fast becoming a police state, where power, influence and wealth is a must for any kind of justice. Ordinary citizens just don't count - you have to be sheep, do as your told etc. Why do you think they have more cctv than any other country - for your protection?

Facial ID image recognition has been used for some time. Maybe you resembled someone, maybe you were just unlucky.

[ukrules]

@mickjn: The items were already seized when the offer was made. To refuse to say anything could be interpreted as a reason for suspicion. FACT is, these officers apparently believe they are above the law. It remains to be seen if it is so,

I've flat out told them it's none of their business what I've been doing or who I've been meeting when abroad and to 'do what you must' and shoved my bags in their general direction. This particular case was after a short flight from Amsterdam to Birmingham. I have no time for these people.

The OP will probably never get his laptop or other equipment back and if he does there's a good chance it will be broken as it will most likely have been physically dismantled during their inspections.

Forensic data services will likely take months to examine your computer and due to the evidence regulations they're not meant to turn the device on if it's already turned off as files could and will be modified merely by booting the device - instead they must access the hard drives directly and 'image' them before performaing any analysis. This is why they will take it apart. There is no obligation to return it to you in the same state it was seized in. You will probably receive a bag of hastily dismantled components back - ie - they will rip the hard drive out with to thought to it being carefully reassembled at a later date.

[Tatsujin]

@uptheos. I have not yet got my stuff back. On the very day the Border Agency received my Notice of Prosecution, they called me about identifying my computer. It seems they have seized so many that they can't keep track of them, Why mention Thai? On any given news report about something negative about Thailand or its people, there is a type of expat or regular visitor who will charge in and stereotype all Thais to that bad example, as if the country they left is perfect. This syndrome is based on the person's need for a sense of national superiority to the one they have chosed to live in/marry into. But that's another subject.

Am gonna take issue with one small point, and take it slightly off your main topic.

I'm also from the UK, and although I am quick to point out the deficiencies of most things here in Thailand, I would in no way say that the UK is perfect. Indeed, if it was, I'd still be there.

I think what you'll find is that a lot of people who post negative comments about Thailand aren't doing so because of any nationalistic superiority, simply that they are (for the most part) able to see past the bullshit here and see things for how they are.

Hand in hand with the above, I'll go further and say that if there was a forum such as this in ANY country in the world, and I was residing in said country, I'd continue to do the same thing there as I do here. It's not to put Thailand down, it's not because of any sense of nationalistic pride (I have very little if any for the UK and it's citizens), it's not to make myself feel superior . . . it's simply a way to vent a few frustrations and as a reaction to the sense of disappointment that many feel when it "could" be so much better somewhere than it actually is.

And bear in mind also, as a Brit, we complain about anything and everything, no matter where we are. We're never happy and can always find something to complain about. If it wasn't the farcical attempt at Governing we see currently here, it would be something else, the weather, the food, the elephant that crapped outside my gate. Something, anything.

Peace.

EDIT: Going back to your original topic, I've also had issues with Customs/Immigration in the UK and found them all (to a man/woman) to be rude, ignorant, arrogant, racist, insensitive, idiotic, overly suspicious, abusive of power/authority and generally complete <deleted> that can't be reasoned with. I hope that settles the balance just a little with regards the negative comments about Thailand.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tatsujin

[wileycoyote]

Thank you ,

Wil be vigilant

[mamypoko]

Want to start setting off red flags? Start by not checking any luggage on int'l flights.

[Andre0720]

@FiftyTwo: "Your topic title is a bit misleading as it isn't a general hazard for Brits.

It's a hazard for single elderly males carrying data sources.

Women, young guys and couples would have not been affected.

Older guys with no laptops or thumb drives would not be affected."

That is a tunnel-vision assumption by you, and that profiles single men. The latter itself is an outrageous abuse. FACT is that if international law is being blatantly flouted by the UK Border Agency, as the info provided above by CharlieH confirms, ANYBODY is at risk of being a victim of some officer who got out of bed the wrong side or with a bee in his/her bonnet about a particulat thing.

@h90: It appears you did not read what has been posted before. The CURRENT law requires a reason to be given for a seizure (as stated in the Border Agency's own brochure).

''@h90: It appears you did not read what has been posted before. The CURRENT law requires a reason to be given for a seizure (as stated in the Border Agency's own brochure).''

Reason:

They were suspicious...

[Andre0720]

Thanks for your response Charlie, but guessing that the officers 'reacted' to my disposition is irrelevant. Either behaviour is abusive, which may be countered by appropriate action, or it is not. The point here is that any officer may seize the personal possessions of any national re-entering the country on any pretext. An internal directive to 'check devices more thoroughly' is one thing, but to seize them for any amount of time is something else altogether and is directly opposed to the stated written policy. Basically, an officer who has an aversion to bald men, or long-haired men etc., etc., may exercise his prejudice against them. The point of my post is that YOU (or any reader) could be next.

''Thanks for your response Charlie, but guessing that the officers 'reacted' to my disposition is irrelevant. Either behaviour is abusive, which may be countered by appropriate action, or it is not.''

If you are under the belief that your disposition is irrelevant,

Small wonder that you have such a problem.....