I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
The Latvians didn't withhold it Gary. There just does not seem to be an automatic system whereby people go abroad and the info is on their passport.
It means that if Ched Evans chooses to live in Spain, the Spanish don't know they have a convicted rapist in their midsts. I think they should know. What is the point of all this biometric passport stuff and asking stupid questions of people like me, if the important info isn't there?
Then that's crazy. If you are going to allow free movement of EU citizens then a main database of criminal activity should be there and activated when passports are used.
The Latvians didn't withhold it Gary. There just does not seem to be an automatic system whereby people go abroad and the info is on their passport.
It means that if Ched Evans chooses to live in Spain, the Spanish don't know they have a convicted rapist in their midsts. I think they should know. What is the point of all this biometric passport stuff and asking stupid questions of people like me, if the important info isn't there?
Then that's crazy. If you are going to allow free movement of EU citizens then a main database of criminal activity should be there and activated when passports are used.
I think you are going to hear a lot more about this as a result of this case. Sadly, I fear, too late for the poor girl and her family. And I am afraid UKIP will jump on it for the wrong reasons and with no reasonable solutions.
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
And..? What could the Met have done with that bit of information in that case? If he's guilty of one crime, that doesn't mean he's guilty of another one.
Again, we are going to hear more about this, I think. But obviously the police would have treated the girl more seriously if they knew about the guy's murder rap, don't you think? Just as they are doing now. two nights ago he wasn't a suspect, then they got the info from Latvia today, and now he is.
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
But - and herein I believe lies the issue - even if the border police know that an EU citizen has a conviction, I don't know that there's a single thing they can do about it.
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
But - and herein I believe lies the issue - even if the border police know that an EU citizen has a conviction, I don't know that there's a single thing they can do about it.
It means that the info goes on the UK criminal record, and helps them if he appears on their radar in the future. In 2009 for example.
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
But - and herein I believe lies the issue - even if the border police know that an EU citizen has a conviction, I don't know that there's a single thing they can do about it.
It means that the info goes on the UK criminal record, and helps them if he appears on their radar in the future. In 2009 for example.
I don't know that it does. Just because he had a conviction before 2009, it doesn't make him guilty of that alleged crime. And, to follow your process, you're actually saying that he would still be allowed in.
Prague , next time you come through customs make sure you're wearing a Charlton shirt, the Border patrol guy will take one look at you and think... poor sod , and will wave you through no questions asked.
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
As it happens I've suggested to Prague why he may have been 'interviewed' on his way out based on my experience working alongside the police and customs over many years. You've suggested it's some sort of high level, Teresa May inspired, cock up and put forward another one of your anti-public sector prejudices as criticism for a bloke doing his job properly in yet another snidey post aimed at digging out those of us you clearly have such a problem with.
I'm flattered you've attempted to go into such a deep analysis of my post, however, I'm afraid you are, once again, completely wrong. I don't post in an attempt to dig out anyone, and even if I did, the fact you replied specifically to that point shows you're too easily wound up. You have a habit of playing the man when you can't play the ball.
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Exactly. There are strict laws in place to prevent the unintended use or misappropriation of data and this affects how data can be transferred across borders. Even if such a system was in place, it wouldn't 'live-update' as this would be logistically speaking extremely difficult to set up, so you instead have countries holding records of foreign nationals that are potentially out of date, erroneous or obsolete. Consider people who have a criminal record, with or without their knowledge, that they shouldn't have due to either a clerical error at the database administration or because the conviction is quashed but doesn't get removed. Then compare the comparatively water-tight justice and criminal record system of the UK with other EU member states such as Romania, Bulgaria or Italy. However proficient do you think they are in the meticulous upkeep of their criminal record systems?
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
But - and herein I believe lies the issue - even if the border police know that an EU citizen has a conviction, I don't know that there's a single thing they can do about it.
It means that the info goes on the UK criminal record, and helps them if he appears on their radar in the future. In 2009 for example.
I don't know that it does. Just because he had a conviction before 2009, it doesn't make him guilty of that alleged crime. And, to follow your process, you're actually saying that he would still be allowed in.
Sure, but of course police pay more attention to a serious allegation if they find the alleged offender has similar previous. Thats pretty basic police procedure isn't it?
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
But - and herein I believe lies the issue - even if the border police know that an EU citizen has a conviction, I don't know that there's a single thing they can do about it.
It means that the info goes on the UK criminal record, and helps them if he appears on their radar in the future. In 2009 for example.
I don't know that it does. Just because he had a conviction before 2009, it doesn't make him guilty of that alleged crime. And, to follow your process, you're actually saying that he would still be allowed in.
Sure, but of course police pay more attention to a serious allegation if they find the alleged offender has similar previous. Thats pretty basic police procedure isn't it?
You're right. But it shouldn't be the case. You are either innocent or guilty of crime "b" because of the evidence surrounding crime "b", not because of your guilt of crime "a", several years ago in a different country.
The Latvians didn't withhold it Gary. There just does not seem to be an automatic system whereby people go abroad and the info is on their passport.
It means that Ched Evans chooses to live in Spain, the Spanish don't know they have a convicted rapist in their midsts. I think they should know. What is the point of all this biometric passport stuff and asking stupid questions of people like me, if the important info isn't there?
Then that's crazy. If you are going to allow free movement of EU citizens then a main database of criminal activity should be there and activated when passports are used.
Sadly, I think a lot of people assume that real life is like the movies where the detective puts in a few details and seconds later the system throws out the name, address, work history, travel plans and lottery numbers of the suspect. I don"t mean to be facetious but the system for the exchange of info between polices forces within the UK, although improving, is somewhat haphazard let alone trying to link in with other countries.
FWIW the exchange of information between enforcement agencies is improving every year but there's also the not unimportant and difficult issue of retaining a balance in civil liberties.
I agree with all you said, but it seems there is a problem whereby EU countries don't automatically share with each other the criminal records of their citizens. Which is surprising when you think of all the data collecting, and the allegedly sophisticated passports we all have to carry. If the Met had known about his murder rap, they might have taken a different approach to him in the Ealing case.
I am a big pro EU citizen, but this is clearly something that needs to be tightened up. Then the Border Police could do something useful, instead of asking me questions about what kind of consultancy I run in Prague.
It's a really interesting question. Do you think EU police forces should share criminal records? And, even if they did, what could be done?
Definitely we should share criminal records. I was surprised to hear about this problem. After all Europol is one of the EU successes, working to track down British paedophiles who abscond to Spain and elsewhere to escape justice. These bloody biometric passports could easily carry details of serious criminal convictions. That would therefore have meant that when the Met nabbed the guy in 2009, they'd have known straight away about his murder rap.
(This is absolutely not meant to be a dig at you, but...) on the one hand, you are saying that all police forces across the EU should collect and collate all criminal records about every EU citizen and share them across ever jurisdiction without recourse to what the receiving authority might use the data for... and at the same time, you baulk at having the border police ask you a few innocuous questions.
Yes. Im trying to say that they are pissing around hassling innocent people when the technology exists to help them concentrate on the not innocent people. There are some seriously nasty British individuals in Prague (the only time I've been in a potentially dangerous situation in Prague was when we encountered one in a pub), and nothing is done to alert the Czech authorities about these scumbags. The passports should carry the data about convictions, why not? Driving licences do.
But - and herein I believe lies the issue - even if the border police know that an EU citizen has a conviction, I don't know that there's a single thing they can do about it.
It means that the info goes on the UK criminal record, and helps them if he appears on their radar in the future. In 2009 for example.
I don't know that it does. Just because he had a conviction before 2009, it doesn't make him guilty of that alleged crime. And, to follow your process, you're actually saying that he would still be allowed in.
Sure, but of course police pay more attention to a serious allegation if they find the alleged offender has similar previous. Thats pretty basic police procedure isn't it?
You're right. But it shouldn't be the case. You are either innocent or guilty of crime "b" because of the evidence surrounding crime "b", not because of your guilt of crime "a", several years ago in a different country.
Honestly, I don't get this. My understanding of police procedure is limited to TV crime series, but how often have I watched Wallander and heard something like "Kurt! We've just heard from Copenhagen police. Jensen (an apparently respectable businessman with an alibi) was convicted of fraud twenty years ago"
So someone screwed up at border control and probably again when the Met police had a chance to look into his background. Lots of people in positions of responsibility don't do their jobs probably or operate in conditions that stop them doing a good job.
Turning to UKIP, nationalistic policies and suchlike in these circumstances is a bit extreme isn't it?
So someone screwed up at border control and probably again when the Met police had a chance to look into his background. Lots of people in positions of responsibility don't do their jobs probably or operate in conditions that stop them doing a good job.
Turning to UKIP, nationalistic policies and suchlike in these circumstances is a bit extreme isn't it?
Tyson is not from the EU.
So what? He did his crimes in the US and was refused entry here. Latvia joined the EU in 2004. All countries in the EU have different immigration policies but share some information and codes of conduct. The Latvian guy in question was an 'undesirable' and shouldn't have been let in. Maybe he was given a clean slate in Latvia having done time, and then lied on entering the UK and no records were there to check against. Doesn't lead me to an anti-foreigner or anti EU position. Does lead me to think systems need to be improved.
Yesterday at Ebbsfleet before boarding the Eurostar, I of course had to show my passport. I didn't really expect the Spanish Inquisition, and maybe this wasn't it, but how many of you have had to answer so many tedious questions when you are a British citizen leaving the the UK?
- Where are you travelling to?
- Brussels
- and what will you be doing there?
- Actually I am travelling on to Prague
- I see, and what are you doing there?
- I live there now
- And what do you do there, are you retired or something?
- I wish. I have my own small business there
- And what kind of business?
- A consultancy
- and what kind of consultancy? (at this point I started to think he was taking the piss)
- Human resources
- and what were you doing in the UK, was that business ?
- visiting friends and family
- OK thank you sir, please pass on to my colleague from French border control (the French official - whose territory I was effectively entering - glanced at my passport and waved me through)
Now it really didn't threaten my journey and didn't last long, but honestly, what was the point of all that? What TF business is it of a UK border official what kind of work I do in Prague, especially when I am leaving rather than entering the UK?
It seems to me the Border Police really don't like Eurostar as I have witnessed a lot of aggressive questioning of obviously innocent EU citizens at Brussels, building up stressful queues in the process. Its as if they resent people choosing the train so as to avoid their endless queues at Luton or Heathrow. Now I read that they have an unpleasant surprise for those who think that by taking the new Eurostar direct from Marseilles they can avoid all that crap. They will make passengers get off at Lille, with all their luggage, go through their frigging control, and get on another Eurostar two hours later. Effectively sabotaging Eurostar's "direct" service.
WTF?
The threat to the UK from international terrorism recently increased to the status of "severe". That is one level under the highest-"critical".
Ive personally always held the view that the authorities are privy to intelligence that we simply dont know about, so you just have to roll with it in these situations.
Indeed, you're not to know for certain why they even questioned you. It could be that they were actually watching someone else to see their body language/reaction, whilst seeing you being interviewed.
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
We've crossed swords a lot recently but then we clearly share an interest in current affairs albeit don't have much else in the way of common ground beyond CAFC I would think. But if @Fiiish is going to slag off the public sector and those that work in it every chance he has then I don't think it's very surprising if a public sector worker might pull him up and argue their corner do you???
Yesterday at Ebbsfleet before boarding the Eurostar, I of course had to show my passport. I didn't really expect the Spanish Inquisition, and maybe this wasn't it, but how many of you have had to answer so many tedious questions when you are a British citizen leaving the the UK?
- Where are you travelling to?
- Brussels
- and what will you be doing there?
- Actually I am travelling on to Prague
- I see, and what are you doing there?
- I live there now
- And what do you do there, are you retired or something?
- I wish. I have my own small business there
- And what kind of business?
- A consultancy
- and what kind of consultancy? (at this point I started to think he was taking the piss)
- Human resources
- and what were you doing in the UK, was that business ?
- visiting friends and family
- OK thank you sir, please pass on to my colleague from French border control (the French official - whose territory I was effectively entering - glanced at my passport and waved me through)
Now it really didn't threaten my journey and didn't last long, but honestly, what was the point of all that? What TF business is it of a UK border official what kind of work I do in Prague, especially when I am leaving rather than entering the UK?
It seems to me the Border Police really don't like Eurostar as I have witnessed a lot of aggressive questioning of obviously innocent EU citizens at Brussels, building up stressful queues in the process. Its as if they resent people choosing the train so as to avoid their endless queues at Luton or Heathrow. Now I read that they have an unpleasant surprise for those who think that by taking the new Eurostar direct from Marseilles they can avoid all that crap. They will make passengers get off at Lille, with all their luggage, go through their frigging control, and get on another Eurostar two hours later. Effectively sabotaging Eurostar's "direct" service.
WTF?
The threat to the UK from international terrorism recently increased to the status of "severe". That is one level under the highest-"critical".
Ive personally always held the view that the authorities are privy to intelligence that we simply dont know about, so you just have to roll with it in these situations.
Indeed, you're not to know for certain why they even questioned you. It could be that they were actually watching someone else to see their body language/reaction, whilst seeing you being interviewed.
That's an interesting and plausible explanation.
It's just that when I then read how they are going to treat all passengers, each and every day, on the "direct" Eurostar Marseilles - London service I get the impression of an organisation whose power has gone to its head. Which also happens a lot, in all walks of life.
Anyway I'm up much later than I should be, but thanks for all the comments. Hope I will wake up to at least find the Border Police haven't got a new one to deal with :-)
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
We've crossed swords a lot recently but then we clearly share an interest in current affairs albeit don't have much else in the way of common ground beyond CAFC I would think. But if @Fiiish is going to slag off the public sector and those that work in it every chance he has then I don't think it's very surprising if a public sector worker might pull him up and argue their corner do you???
I worked in the public sector for many years and I've seen the waste and 'jobs for the boys' that has and continues to go on in it.
It's still not in the same ball park as the waste that goes on in the private sector.
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
We've crossed swords a lot recently but then we clearly share an interest in current affairs albeit don't have much else in the way of common ground beyond CAFC I would think. But if @Fiiish is going to slag off the public sector and those that work in it every chance he has then I don't think it's very surprising if a public sector worker might pull him up and argue their corner do you???
I think you're slightly obsessed mate. I referenced how initiatives within border control are perhaps badly communicated from the top, that's hardly slagging off the entire public sector. If I criticise another team's chairman, that doesn't mean I'm slagging off everyone who works in football. Also I agree with much of what you say in other threads (in fact I agree with your above comments regarding data-sharing cross borders). I'm legitimately allowed to question how well the heads of taxpayer funded institutions are doing their job, doesn't mean I've having a go at, say, nurses or immigration officers.
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
We've crossed swords a lot recently but then we clearly share an interest in current affairs albeit don't have much else in the way of common ground beyond CAFC I would think. But if @Fiiish is going to slag off the public sector and those that work in it every chance he has then I don't think it's very surprising if a public sector worker might pull him up and argue their corner do you???
I worked in the public sector for many years and I've seen the waste and 'jobs for the boys' that has and continues to go on in it.
It's still not in the same ball park as the waste that goes on in the private sector.
True, I work in this company in the private sector and they waste money on lazy sods who spend all day posting on football forums
Also it's pretty obvious the man is invoved it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work it out
A few years ago a young woman was murdered just outside Bristol on Xmas eve. The landlord did it the papers said ( the man, ex- school master behaved differently to the norm). Absolutely nailed on no doubt about it. Unfortunately for the man, news papers, police and the girls family he was completely innocent. Another tenant in the house was convicted and the unfortunate man with his reputation ruined successfully sued the news papers.
Maybe you are correct about the mans involvement but there could be other reasons and explanations for the disappearance of these two people however unlikely it may seem.
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
We've crossed swords a lot recently but then we clearly share an interest in current affairs albeit don't have much else in the way of common ground beyond CAFC I would think. But if @Fiiish is going to slag off the public sector and those that work in it every chance he has then I don't think it's very surprising if a public sector worker might pull him up and argue their corner do you???
I think you're slightly obsessed mate. I referenced how initiatives within border control are perhaps badly communicated from the top, that's hardly slagging off the entire public sector. If I criticise another team's chairman, that doesn't mean I'm slagging off everyone who works in football. Also I agree with much of what you say in other threads (in fact I agree with your above comments regarding data-sharing cross borders). I'm legitimately allowed to question how well the heads of taxpayer funded institutions are doing their job, doesn't mean I've having a go at, say, nurses or immigration officers.
The probably received a top-down directive from the Home Office regarding questioning people leaving the country in case they're going out to join IS, unfortunately due to how badly top-down communications are delivered in the public sector, they probably interrogate every 50th person instead of applying a common sense approach. Also our terror level alert has been raised so I imagine some pen-pushing busybody has introduced 'enhanced checks' to make it look like to their boss that they're doing something.
Why don't you have a night off slating the public sector?
Maybe when the public sector achieves the kind of service level that represents the monstrous level of taxpayer investment it gets. When will you have a night off following the threads I've posted in just to snipe at me and not actually add to the discussion?
Don't flatter yourself and how the hell do I know what threads you've posted in or not?
Well it seems to me you argue with just about every single one.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
We've crossed swords a lot recently but then we clearly share an interest in current affairs albeit don't have much else in the way of common ground beyond CAFC I would think. But if @Fiiish is going to slag off the public sector and those that work in it every chance he has then I don't think it's very surprising if a public sector worker might pull him up and argue their corner do you???
I worked in the public sector for many years and I've seen the waste and 'jobs for the boys' that has and continues to go on in it.
It's still not in the same ball park as the waste that goes on in the private sector.
True, I work in this company in the private sector and they waste money on lazy sods who spend all day posting on football forums
And give them sick pay when they break their legs when pissed out of their heads. :-)
No wonder you're on here so much recently.
Shouldn't you be on the Scottish Independence thread?
Comments
You should have said "Don't you know who I am?"
Seems to work on here.
But then being a public servant I suppose you've got the spare time :-)
:-)
(Actually I think I gave you a Trust News in the Oak. You didn't seem delighted to receive it)
FWIW the exchange of information between enforcement agencies is improving every year but there's also the not unimportant and difficult issue of retaining a balance in civil liberties.
Honestly, I don't get this. My understanding of police procedure is limited to TV crime series, but how often have I watched Wallander and heard something like "Kurt! We've just heard from Copenhagen police. Jensen (an apparently respectable businessman with an alibi) was convicted of fraud twenty years ago"
You should of said "Don't you know who I am?"
I'd have bought you a pint.
Ive personally always held the view that the authorities are privy to intelligence that we simply dont know about, so you just have to roll with it in these situations.
Indeed, you're not to know for certain why they even questioned you. It could be that they were actually watching someone else to see their body language/reaction, whilst seeing you being interviewed.
Next time...
It's just that when I then read how they are going to treat all passengers, each and every day, on the "direct" Eurostar Marseilles - London service I get the impression of an organisation whose power has gone to its head. Which also happens a lot, in all walks of life.
Anyway I'm up much later than I should be, but thanks for all the comments. Hope I will wake up to at least find the Border Police haven't got a new one to deal with :-)
It's still not in the same ball park as the waste that goes on in the private sector.
The landlord did it the papers said ( the man, ex- school master behaved differently to the norm). Absolutely nailed on no doubt about it. Unfortunately for the man, news papers, police and the girls family he was completely innocent. Another tenant in the house was convicted and the unfortunate man with his reputation ruined successfully sued the news papers.
Maybe you are correct about the mans involvement but there could be other reasons and explanations for the disappearance of these two people however unlikely it may seem.
No wonder you're on here so much recently.
Shouldn't you be on the Scottish Independence thread?