marriage visa age back to 18

I don’t quite agree with the British marriage visa law that was changed to 21 in 2008. I got married at the age of 19 and am 20 now its been a full year full of hardship for me and my husband as we are separated by the law. I have waited a full year for the law to change and have been abroad 2 times in one year to visit my husband. but now its too much for me I am pregnant carrying complication and the least good that can happen is for my husband to be by ma side when I need him the most. The only communication I have had with my husband since I have been back is on the phone. I was patient until now thinking that the British law is fair. After hearing that the visa age for HM forces has lowered to 18 I am sorry to say but I don’t agree with the law it should be same for all civilians. We also are human and need our partners and miss them as much as others. it would be grateful if the law could change back to 18 because this is not going to stop force marriages and also parent have become much aware of what their children require in life and force marriages is something of the past. If the law was to change I thing, as well as may other people would agree, it should have changed for all civilians and if not then it should have remained same for all.

Why is this idea important?

I don’t quite agree with the British marriage visa law that was changed to 21 in 2008. I got married at the age of 19 and am 20 now its been a full year full of hardship for me and my husband as we are separated by the law. I have waited a full year for the law to change and have been abroad 2 times in one year to visit my husband. but now its too much for me I am pregnant carrying complication and the least good that can happen is for my husband to be by ma side when I need him the most. The only communication I have had with my husband since I have been back is on the phone. I was patient until now thinking that the British law is fair. After hearing that the visa age for HM forces has lowered to 18 I am sorry to say but I don’t agree with the law it should be same for all civilians. We also are human and need our partners and miss them as much as others. it would be grateful if the law could change back to 18 because this is not going to stop force marriages and also parent have become much aware of what their children require in life and force marriages is something of the past. If the law was to change I thing, as well as may other people would agree, it should have changed for all civilians and if not then it should have remained same for all.

Review the activities of the borders agency

UK Borders staff should treat UK nationals returning to teh country with greater respect and efficiency. Remove the stupid rule that says you can't use a mobile phone in an arrivals hall and return to a wave through system for people with UK passports. Also revise their search powers- I was stopped by a UK Border Agency official at Portrmouth because he wanted to see where the engine of my car was!!

Why is this idea important?

UK Borders staff should treat UK nationals returning to teh country with greater respect and efficiency. Remove the stupid rule that says you can't use a mobile phone in an arrivals hall and return to a wave through system for people with UK passports. Also revise their search powers- I was stopped by a UK Border Agency official at Portrmouth because he wanted to see where the engine of my car was!!

New English language requirement for partners

From 29 November 2010, you will need to show that you can speak and understand English if you want to enter or remain in the UK as the partner of a British citizen or a person settled here.

I wish to change the new requirement so a person does not need to pass any test before any  power so that they may live there life together.

Why is this idea important?

From 29 November 2010, you will need to show that you can speak and understand English if you want to enter or remain in the UK as the partner of a British citizen or a person settled here.

I wish to change the new requirement so a person does not need to pass any test before any  power so that they may live there life together.

On the subject of work…

I find it 'amazing' that my people struggle to find work in this Country that their ancestors built with their blood (England). Yet I can get on a bus in my native Liverpool and the diver cannot even speak English!

Why is this idea important?

I find it 'amazing' that my people struggle to find work in this Country that their ancestors built with their blood (England). Yet I can get on a bus in my native Liverpool and the diver cannot even speak English!

Right to be recognised as English and not just British!

Change British Passports to English, Welsh, Northern Ireland or Scottish. The Irish get their own. If we're different countries why not recognise this????

Why is this idea important?

Change British Passports to English, Welsh, Northern Ireland or Scottish. The Irish get their own. If we're different countries why not recognise this????

Apply time limits and judicial oversight to immigration detainees

 

At present the decision to detain someone is made by an immigration officer without any judicial oversight. There is no time limit on immigration detention, and detainees have great difficulty getting legal representation to apply for bail. Thus their access to a legal challenge to the deprivation of liberty is severely restricted. While the UK Border Agency(UKBA) claim that no-one is detained for ‘longer than is necessary’, there is no legal limit on detention.  Figures from the Home Office in February 2010 showed that 255 people had been held in immigration detention for more than a year in 2009 – and 45 for more than two years. In reality, since UKBA keeps no figures on cumulative detention, more people have been detained for longer than the figures suggest.  The Home Office has the power to detain someone either to examine their asylum claim if they deem that claim to be straightforward, or if they believe the person will abscond, or that their removal from the UK is imminent.In practice, for many detainees there are barriers to their removal, such as lack of documentation, or the destination country being unsafe, which means that hundreds of people are held for long periods without prospect of release.  There are just over 2500 detention spaces.

The mental toll of indefinite detention is manifested in many ways, not least in the amount of self-harming incidents among those held. In 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008, according to Home Office statistics.

The First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (currently operated separately from HM Court Services) often require a lower burden of proof from the Home Office than from the applicant. If the HO claims that a person will abscond no evidence is required. Immigration detainees have great difficulty securing release from detention through the courts.  Just 18% of applications for bail are successful.  Although under the law there is a presumption in favour of liberty, in practice many immigration judges put the emphasis on the detainee to prove why he or she should be released from detention, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Home Office to provide evidence as to why the deprivation of liberty is deemed necessary.

There are no written records of bail hearings.  Only the judge’s decision is recorded so it is impossible to provide evidence of errors or of the basis on which decision are made for future challenges. 

Why is this idea important?

 

At present the decision to detain someone is made by an immigration officer without any judicial oversight. There is no time limit on immigration detention, and detainees have great difficulty getting legal representation to apply for bail. Thus their access to a legal challenge to the deprivation of liberty is severely restricted. While the UK Border Agency(UKBA) claim that no-one is detained for ‘longer than is necessary’, there is no legal limit on detention.  Figures from the Home Office in February 2010 showed that 255 people had been held in immigration detention for more than a year in 2009 – and 45 for more than two years. In reality, since UKBA keeps no figures on cumulative detention, more people have been detained for longer than the figures suggest.  The Home Office has the power to detain someone either to examine their asylum claim if they deem that claim to be straightforward, or if they believe the person will abscond, or that their removal from the UK is imminent.In practice, for many detainees there are barriers to their removal, such as lack of documentation, or the destination country being unsafe, which means that hundreds of people are held for long periods without prospect of release.  There are just over 2500 detention spaces.

The mental toll of indefinite detention is manifested in many ways, not least in the amount of self-harming incidents among those held. In 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008, according to Home Office statistics.

The First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (currently operated separately from HM Court Services) often require a lower burden of proof from the Home Office than from the applicant. If the HO claims that a person will abscond no evidence is required. Immigration detainees have great difficulty securing release from detention through the courts.  Just 18% of applications for bail are successful.  Although under the law there is a presumption in favour of liberty, in practice many immigration judges put the emphasis on the detainee to prove why he or she should be released from detention, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Home Office to provide evidence as to why the deprivation of liberty is deemed necessary.

There are no written records of bail hearings.  Only the judge’s decision is recorded so it is impossible to provide evidence of errors or of the basis on which decision are made for future challenges. 

Stop the UKBA from socially and economically excluding highly skilled migrants

I would like the UK Border Agency to be fairer and more transparent in its treatement of highly skilled migrants when they are subject to visa renewals.

On 17 June 2010, I applied for a Leave to Remain under Tier 1 General of the Points-based system. On 08 July 2010, my visa application was turned down under the same circumstances that happened over a year ago when I applied for an extension of stay under Tier 1 Post-study Work of the Points-based system.

The ground for refusal being that my salary is lawfully being paid into my brother's bank account due to the predicament I have with UK high street banks and CIFAS (the UK Fraud Prevention Service).  The UKBA refuses to acknowledge the fact that the money held into my brother's bank account is lawfully mine in accordance with Part II (7), point (c), page 22 of the Wages Act 1986 c.48, which states that an employee’s “money payment” can lawfully be made “into any account kept with a bank or other institution”. 

This Article of Law contradicts the UKBA guidance on Tier 1 General of the Points-based System, which requires visa applicants to submit personal bank statements as evidence of earnings claimed. 

Almost a year ago, I had the UKBA decision overturned in AIT Courts by two immigration judges subsequent to two Court Hearings.  All documentary evidence had respectively been provided to relevant ministers more than 10 days ago and I am still awaiting their replies.  Not one of them has been polite enough to acknoledge receipt of my letter supported with documentary eveidence.  I am apolitical but this was a lot better with a single party in power; decisions were far better and quicker.

In the meantine, I am likely to incur £55,000 loss in furture earning from September 2010, as I have a firm job offer at £40,000 and a renegotiated contract with my current employer at £15,000.  Finally, I am likely to secure a £35,000 job position from September or October 2010.

In its witch hunt, the UK Border Agency is making the taxpaper lose extraordinary amounts of money by constraining me to appeal against its unfair decision.  Rather than allowing me to have access to administrative review as an in-country applicant to reduce costs and bureaucracy, the UKBA prefers to automatically refer me to the AIT Tribunal.

Why is this idea important?

I would like the UK Border Agency to be fairer and more transparent in its treatement of highly skilled migrants when they are subject to visa renewals.

On 17 June 2010, I applied for a Leave to Remain under Tier 1 General of the Points-based system. On 08 July 2010, my visa application was turned down under the same circumstances that happened over a year ago when I applied for an extension of stay under Tier 1 Post-study Work of the Points-based system.

The ground for refusal being that my salary is lawfully being paid into my brother's bank account due to the predicament I have with UK high street banks and CIFAS (the UK Fraud Prevention Service).  The UKBA refuses to acknowledge the fact that the money held into my brother's bank account is lawfully mine in accordance with Part II (7), point (c), page 22 of the Wages Act 1986 c.48, which states that an employee’s “money payment” can lawfully be made “into any account kept with a bank or other institution”. 

This Article of Law contradicts the UKBA guidance on Tier 1 General of the Points-based System, which requires visa applicants to submit personal bank statements as evidence of earnings claimed. 

Almost a year ago, I had the UKBA decision overturned in AIT Courts by two immigration judges subsequent to two Court Hearings.  All documentary evidence had respectively been provided to relevant ministers more than 10 days ago and I am still awaiting their replies.  Not one of them has been polite enough to acknoledge receipt of my letter supported with documentary eveidence.  I am apolitical but this was a lot better with a single party in power; decisions were far better and quicker.

In the meantine, I am likely to incur £55,000 loss in furture earning from September 2010, as I have a firm job offer at £40,000 and a renegotiated contract with my current employer at £15,000.  Finally, I am likely to secure a £35,000 job position from September or October 2010.

In its witch hunt, the UK Border Agency is making the taxpaper lose extraordinary amounts of money by constraining me to appeal against its unfair decision.  Rather than allowing me to have access to administrative review as an in-country applicant to reduce costs and bureaucracy, the UKBA prefers to automatically refer me to the AIT Tribunal.

Reduce intrusiveness of E-borders

The E-borders project records and monitors far too many details about the trips of its citizens.

 

There are no reasonable grounds for the Government needing to know the destination, method of payment, companions etc etc of its citizens when they make a foreign or domestic trip.

To collect such information should require a Court Warrant just as the search of a person's home should.

Why is this idea important?

The E-borders project records and monitors far too many details about the trips of its citizens.

 

There are no reasonable grounds for the Government needing to know the destination, method of payment, companions etc etc of its citizens when they make a foreign or domestic trip.

To collect such information should require a Court Warrant just as the search of a person's home should.

Student Visa

People have been allowed into this country on the pretext of Student Visa. Those people who never been to college in their home country. Not only that , those students then are allowed to bring their spouse? It should be stopped and if anyone is allowed on student VISA as soon as that particular course is over student should go back and reapply for further course visa.

Then they should not be allowed to go on to other sort of VISA e.g. working visa and lead to permanent visa. This way illegal immigration can be controlled. Sponsor should be pursued to return the sponsred to UK Border Agency. Employer employing illegal workers should be dealt with more strictly.

Why is this idea important?

People have been allowed into this country on the pretext of Student Visa. Those people who never been to college in their home country. Not only that , those students then are allowed to bring their spouse? It should be stopped and if anyone is allowed on student VISA as soon as that particular course is over student should go back and reapply for further course visa.

Then they should not be allowed to go on to other sort of VISA e.g. working visa and lead to permanent visa. This way illegal immigration can be controlled. Sponsor should be pursued to return the sponsred to UK Border Agency. Employer employing illegal workers should be dealt with more strictly.

Repeal the UK Borders Agencies Requirement for Universities to Track Student Attendance

The UKBA forces Universities to record student attendance and contacts (eg email contact).

There seems to be two possible objectives that the UKBA wishes to achieve.
either
a) To keep an eye on suspected terrorists
and or
b) to make sure people are not coming into the UK as students as a backdoor to avoid normal immigration controls.

In the case of a) keeping these records accessible to the UKBA is not going to prevent terrorist activity
In the case of b) someone who wishes to slip into the 'undergrowth' will surely have done so by the time the UKBA find out and do something about it.

My conclusion is that this action will be ineffective and that the requirement is a remnant of the previous governments attempts at centralised control. It infringes my privacy and I find it intrusive. Not only that, it is in my case meaningless. I happen to be a UK resident and so the UKBA should have no interest in me. If I were not a UK resident then I believe that I would be at best offended at worst intimidated.

In any event it is a waste of money and an unwarranted level of surveillance.  
 

Why is this idea important?

The UKBA forces Universities to record student attendance and contacts (eg email contact).

There seems to be two possible objectives that the UKBA wishes to achieve.
either
a) To keep an eye on suspected terrorists
and or
b) to make sure people are not coming into the UK as students as a backdoor to avoid normal immigration controls.

In the case of a) keeping these records accessible to the UKBA is not going to prevent terrorist activity
In the case of b) someone who wishes to slip into the 'undergrowth' will surely have done so by the time the UKBA find out and do something about it.

My conclusion is that this action will be ineffective and that the requirement is a remnant of the previous governments attempts at centralised control. It infringes my privacy and I find it intrusive. Not only that, it is in my case meaningless. I happen to be a UK resident and so the UKBA should have no interest in me. If I were not a UK resident then I believe that I would be at best offended at worst intimidated.

In any event it is a waste of money and an unwarranted level of surveillance.  
 

Immigration Rule 320 – Summary Adminstrative justice

Rule 320 of HC395 is the immigration rule which causes the automatic refusal of applications from those whom the UKBA has alleged to have broken the immigration rules at some point in the past.

It is unjust, has a number of "get out" clauses, which create unfair treatment for some groups over other groups, which mean that it in fact has limited application.

Who does it NOT apply to:

Those who are or will be married to British Citizens.

Those who are or will be married to someone with ILR (settlement)

Those who are asylum seekers / humanitarian grounds

Those who are European, or who will be or are married to a European (or a family relative dependent of a european).

Why is this idea important?

Rule 320 of HC395 is the immigration rule which causes the automatic refusal of applications from those whom the UKBA has alleged to have broken the immigration rules at some point in the past.

It is unjust, has a number of "get out" clauses, which create unfair treatment for some groups over other groups, which mean that it in fact has limited application.

Who does it NOT apply to:

Those who are or will be married to British Citizens.

Those who are or will be married to someone with ILR (settlement)

Those who are asylum seekers / humanitarian grounds

Those who are European, or who will be or are married to a European (or a family relative dependent of a european).

Provide a national insurance number when work permit granted

Whenever a non-British / EU passport holder wishes to enter the UK they are required to have a work permit.

However, once they start working, their employer will ask them for a national insurance number.  This is not a requirement to start work, but HM Revenue & Customs expect all employees, in time, to obtain a number.

This is granted after the employee attends an interview at Job Centre Plus, which usually has to be booked weeks or even months in advance.

My idea is why not simply grant a national insurance number when the work permit is issued? 

The interview system is presumably in part to protect the Taxpayer from NI number applicants applying for social security benefits as soon as they get the number.  The solution to that is simple – put a time limit of, say, 2 years before any social security benefits can be paid.

Why is this idea important?

Whenever a non-British / EU passport holder wishes to enter the UK they are required to have a work permit.

However, once they start working, their employer will ask them for a national insurance number.  This is not a requirement to start work, but HM Revenue & Customs expect all employees, in time, to obtain a number.

This is granted after the employee attends an interview at Job Centre Plus, which usually has to be booked weeks or even months in advance.

My idea is why not simply grant a national insurance number when the work permit is issued? 

The interview system is presumably in part to protect the Taxpayer from NI number applicants applying for social security benefits as soon as they get the number.  The solution to that is simple – put a time limit of, say, 2 years before any social security benefits can be paid.

Reduce Application Process Waiting Times

At the moment, application process is taking longer that 10 for a simple and straight forward application. Public can't travel anywhere in the time of application process because UKBA hold thier passport for visa endorsment. I would like to advise UK government to reduce application process waiting times because it's affect health problems for applicant.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, application process is taking longer that 10 for a simple and straight forward application. Public can't travel anywhere in the time of application process because UKBA hold thier passport for visa endorsment. I would like to advise UK government to reduce application process waiting times because it's affect health problems for applicant.

Make the path to citizenship fair, clear and transparent

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

Why is this idea important?

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

E-borders controls for leisure boaters

The last government introduced 'e-borders' legislation as below:

"Primary legislation was enacted in 2006 to provide the framework enabling powers for the programme. The primary legislation (paragraphs 27 and 27B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1971/pdf/ukpga_19710077_en.pdf) as amended in 2006 and sections 32 to 38 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060013_en_1) creates powers for the UK Border Agency and the police to obtain passenger, crew and service data from carriers in advance of all movements into and out of the United Kingdom and a duty for the border agencies to share that data among themselves."

As a general principle, I do not believe it the government's right to know where, when and how it's citizens are travelling. 

More specifically, the UKBA is attempting to apply the provision of "passenger, crew and service data " to the movements of pleasure vessels, without realising that such provision is impractical in many cases. To give a simple example:

A yacht may depart Cowes, with four people aboard, heading for Cherbourg. Because of weather and tides, the skipper decides to divert to, say, Alderney. One of the crew did not enjoy the crossing and decides to fly back to the UK. Meanwhile, the remaining three people decide to sail to Dielette, in France, which will now be easier to reach than Cherbourg. They do so, spend a night there, and set off to return to Cowes. During the trip, the wind makes reaching Cowes a hard beat, and they decide to divert to Poole, which would be a much more comfortable trip. They arrive successfully.

It should be noted that the majority of small boats have no means of online access to keep UKBA aware of such changes.

Before departure they electronically posted an e-borders trip report for four people travelling Cowes/Cherbourg/Cowes. The actual trip was Cowes/Alderney(4)/Dielette(3)/Poole(3). This is entirely a likely scenario. Because the evolving trip deviates from the initial e-borders notification my understanding is that the skipper is liable to prosecution, and yet the skipper has limited means to contact the UKBA and notify changes during the trip, and certainly not whilst at sea.

In my view, the entire e-borders concept infringes personal liberty, but in particular attempting to apply it to small leisure craft is, put simply, daft. The legislation should be withdrawn.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The last government introduced 'e-borders' legislation as below:

"Primary legislation was enacted in 2006 to provide the framework enabling powers for the programme. The primary legislation (paragraphs 27 and 27B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1971/pdf/ukpga_19710077_en.pdf) as amended in 2006 and sections 32 to 38 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060013_en_1) creates powers for the UK Border Agency and the police to obtain passenger, crew and service data from carriers in advance of all movements into and out of the United Kingdom and a duty for the border agencies to share that data among themselves."

As a general principle, I do not believe it the government's right to know where, when and how it's citizens are travelling. 

More specifically, the UKBA is attempting to apply the provision of "passenger, crew and service data " to the movements of pleasure vessels, without realising that such provision is impractical in many cases. To give a simple example:

A yacht may depart Cowes, with four people aboard, heading for Cherbourg. Because of weather and tides, the skipper decides to divert to, say, Alderney. One of the crew did not enjoy the crossing and decides to fly back to the UK. Meanwhile, the remaining three people decide to sail to Dielette, in France, which will now be easier to reach than Cherbourg. They do so, spend a night there, and set off to return to Cowes. During the trip, the wind makes reaching Cowes a hard beat, and they decide to divert to Poole, which would be a much more comfortable trip. They arrive successfully.

It should be noted that the majority of small boats have no means of online access to keep UKBA aware of such changes.

Before departure they electronically posted an e-borders trip report for four people travelling Cowes/Cherbourg/Cowes. The actual trip was Cowes/Alderney(4)/Dielette(3)/Poole(3). This is entirely a likely scenario. Because the evolving trip deviates from the initial e-borders notification my understanding is that the skipper is liable to prosecution, and yet the skipper has limited means to contact the UKBA and notify changes during the trip, and certainly not whilst at sea.

In my view, the entire e-borders concept infringes personal liberty, but in particular attempting to apply it to small leisure craft is, put simply, daft. The legislation should be withdrawn.

 

 

 

Stop UKBA boarding vessels at sea in an intimidating manner

UK yachtsmen and boaters in general are being boarded at sea by officers of the UK Borders Agency that are intimidating and going towards terrifying.

These boarding’s are unannounced and usually without any or much legitimate suspicion that the target is up to no good.

The boarding can be at night, conducted by a team of officers coming alongside your vessel at high speed, then ‘storming ‘over the side, without permission or introduction and going below to start immediate drug swabbing and rummaging activity – apparently the boarding party is split so that some stay up top with the skipper, in case there are booby traps on board!

The officers are in a black powerful inflatable boat – dressed in black overalls, like riot police, have black crash helmets and largely have little ‘people skills’

This is all out of James Bond for most boaters but I am certain that it infringes the right, under the Human Rights Act, of quiet enjoyment of life not to mention the rights in the Magna Carta to roam the seas unhindered.

This process must be stopped in its tracks as the UKBA will not only destroy all the good will that UK boaters have built up with the Marine Police and ‘Customs’ in the past it will also, I think, result in challenges on the UKBA as to the legality of the actions they are taking.

 

I would direct you to the RYA web site:-http://www.rya.org.uk/interests/cruising/current-issues/Pages/stopandsearch.aspx

graphic detail of some of the UKBA activity is detailed. 

This has all been promulgated under the guise of anti terrorism legislation – which in itself should be looked at as a whole.

This issue has been raised at the EU and a definitive answer as to the legality of the actions of the UKBA is awaited.

Please get behind this change before we are being dragged out of our cars at traffic lights on “suspicion of breathing” at which point Civil Liberty will be a sweet memory.

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

UK yachtsmen and boaters in general are being boarded at sea by officers of the UK Borders Agency that are intimidating and going towards terrifying.

These boarding’s are unannounced and usually without any or much legitimate suspicion that the target is up to no good.

The boarding can be at night, conducted by a team of officers coming alongside your vessel at high speed, then ‘storming ‘over the side, without permission or introduction and going below to start immediate drug swabbing and rummaging activity – apparently the boarding party is split so that some stay up top with the skipper, in case there are booby traps on board!

The officers are in a black powerful inflatable boat – dressed in black overalls, like riot police, have black crash helmets and largely have little ‘people skills’

This is all out of James Bond for most boaters but I am certain that it infringes the right, under the Human Rights Act, of quiet enjoyment of life not to mention the rights in the Magna Carta to roam the seas unhindered.

This process must be stopped in its tracks as the UKBA will not only destroy all the good will that UK boaters have built up with the Marine Police and ‘Customs’ in the past it will also, I think, result in challenges on the UKBA as to the legality of the actions they are taking.

 

I would direct you to the RYA web site:-http://www.rya.org.uk/interests/cruising/current-issues/Pages/stopandsearch.aspx

graphic detail of some of the UKBA activity is detailed. 

This has all been promulgated under the guise of anti terrorism legislation – which in itself should be looked at as a whole.

This issue has been raised at the EU and a definitive answer as to the legality of the actions of the UKBA is awaited.

Please get behind this change before we are being dragged out of our cars at traffic lights on “suspicion of breathing” at which point Civil Liberty will be a sweet memory.

 

 

 

 

Scrap Common Travel Area reform

The New Labour Government and the UK Border Agency (UKBA) set about removing our ancient right to travel across the British Isles without a passport. The reforms first surfaced as Clause 48 in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill 2009. This Clause was comprehensively defeated.

Now the UKBA is trying to get the Isle of Man Tynwald to approve the The Immigration (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Order 2010 which introduces the same measures by the back door.

The Coalition Government should assert it's authority over the UKBA and order them to scrap all these plans to force us to carry passports across the Islands.

Why is this idea important?

The New Labour Government and the UK Border Agency (UKBA) set about removing our ancient right to travel across the British Isles without a passport. The reforms first surfaced as Clause 48 in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill 2009. This Clause was comprehensively defeated.

Now the UKBA is trying to get the Isle of Man Tynwald to approve the The Immigration (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Order 2010 which introduces the same measures by the back door.

The Coalition Government should assert it's authority over the UKBA and order them to scrap all these plans to force us to carry passports across the Islands.