French police and customs searching UK campers

[Barryd999]

Bulletguy - 2012-05-26 9:51 PM

 

Retread24800 - 2012-05-05 2:25 PM

 

Most EU countries believe that 5 Cartons (10 packets per carton) are enough for 'personal ' use, French Douanes allow 5 cartons ie 10 cartons, provided that you declare them either at the first customs post after entering France or immediately upon being pulled over for a check. £1800 or €2160 equates with 360 packets or 36 cartons @€6.00 per pack,

 

I would not have believed this amount was for personal use.

 

First of all none of your figures make any sense to me at all. It would help if you clearly defined between cigarettes (sold by sleeve.....not carton) and pack (rolling tobacco).

 

 

My question to you though is just what makes you think any of the amounts are not for personal use? Some people smoke more than others. If rolling tobacco there are those who roll thicker than normal. There is no benchmark to go by.

 

Anyone going to Belgium on a 'baccy trip' or booze cruise isn't going to waste it by bringing back a few sleeves of cigs or pouches of tobacco which will last them no longer than a month.

 

 

A very good point. I might go on smoking for perhaps another 30 years (if I live that is) so assuming I dont want to go abroad again I could bring a transit full back. As it is I tend to buy in six month or yearly amounts which looks a lot but it isnt. Mind you I have cut down to 8-10 a day so they last a while longer but a years supply looks huge. Stuff customs. They should be concentrating on real criminals and illegals not trying to intimidate people who have the sense to think ahead legally. We all signed up for it they cant have both ways!

 

[Barryd999]

Tracker - 2012-05-26 9:55 PM

 

As an avid non smoker and a very rare drinker who dislikes most wines and barely tolerates beer I would ban all personal imports of booze and tobacco products and let those who simply must indulge in these dreadful habits do so to the full benefit of the UK treasury.

 

Consider that when smoking and drinking make you ill you will be first to expect the UK NHS to sort out your own self induced health problems is it not more fair that you should have contributed towards that cost rather than allow everyone else to subsidise you.

 

Bloody selfish I call it - so yes it is a form of greed, self indulgence and selfishness to avoid paying UK duty to extreme levels just because it is legal.

 

That ought to get some interesting responses!

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) Its this bit I like the best

 

"As an avid non smoker and a very rare drinker who dislikes most wines and barely tolerates beer I would ban all personal imports of booze and tobacco products "

 

Why? cos you dont use or like them? Why the frig should these prodcuts be banned cos you dont use them when so many others do?

 

What a stupid and selfish statement

 

 

[malc d]

I bet Tracker's the sort of bloke who tops up his van with cheap French diesel just before returning to the U.K. instead of paying the ' proper ' tax when he gets here, in support of the NHS.

 

 

 

:-|

 

 

[Bulletguy]

Tracker - 2012-05-26 9:55 PM

 

As an avid non smoker and a very rare drinker who dislikes most wines and barely tolerates beer I would ban all personal imports of booze and tobacco products and let those who simply must indulge in these dreadful habits do so to the full benefit of the UK treasury.

 

Consider that when smoking and drinking make you ill you will be first to expect the UK NHS to sort out your own self induced health problems is it not more fair that you should have contributed towards that cost rather than allow everyone else to subsidise you.

 

Bloody selfish I call it - so yes it is a form of greed, self indulgence and selfishness to avoid paying UK duty to extreme levels just because it is legal.

 

That ought to get some interesting responses!

 

The Exchequer currently collects in excess of £10 billion a year in tax.....just from tobacco sales in the UK. Considering as a non-smoker you have not contributed one penny of that £10 billion, your opinion falls immediately. In fact I could make just as much a pointless and senseless argument that as a smoker I believe you should have paid far more tax than what little you did pay.

 

But one thing IS for certain.

 

Ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco.........and watch your taxation go stratospheric. Now will all the anti-smokers and those crowing about it please shout loudly "yes I would LOVE to pay more tax than I am doing and YES I believe I should pay far more tax".

 

The taxation of tobacco in the UK is punitive and grossly unreasonable, as is the petty childishness of hiding cigarette packets to discourage people from taking up smoking. How many non-smokers pass a cigarette counter and think "oooh those packets look pretty....I think I will start smoking?"

 

NONE!

 

I rarely drink so never tramp the Supermarket booze aisles looking for a 'pretty label' which will 'force' me to become a regular drinker.

 

Pathetic childish idiots like Osborne can whack as much tax as they like on tobacco. All it will succeed in doing is driving more and more people over to buy in Belgium, a country which treats adults as adults, and where we are legally allowed to make purchases.

 

[Bulletguy]

malc d - 2012-05-26 11:49 PM

 

I bet Tracker's the sort of bloke who tops up his van with cheap French diesel just before returning to the U.K. instead of paying the ' proper ' tax when he gets here, in support of the NHS.

 

He wouldn't be alone in the preaching of high morals but practising double standards.

[Guest Tracker]

Some interesting comments and it never fails to amaze me how those who choose to smoke and booze will so vehemently defend their habits and blame everyone else but themselves for everything from taxation to the risks of a shortened lifespan whilst 'enjoying' their addictions!

 

Of course I fill up my van with French diesel before the ferry - but I also arrive in France with half a tankful so that I do not have to panic search and buy on a near empty tank - and the balance of that one tankful lasts me the journey home and certainly not a month or six months as some are advocating for their cheap booze and fags.

 

That hardly qualifies as double standards, but since it has been aired, it could be argued that those who seek to avoid paying duty on items consumed in the UK yet benefit fully from UK standards of living and health care truly are themselves guilty of applying double standards. You can't have it both ways and accuse me of double standards whilst denying it applies to yourselves.

 

I am grateful for being reminded of just how much personal tax I am saving by not paying UK duty on things that I don't consume but as I understand it the net cost to the NHS, the Police, society in general and thus proportionately to me of all the booze and fag related illness and injuries is far more than the taxation gained from such purchases so it is a fallacy and a typical boozers ploy to say that without such revenues my tax bill would be greater.

 

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

"The public cost of smoking and drinking

 

Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have often been justified by studies that claim to estimate the “social cost” of these vices. These studies include intangible costs borne by individual consumers, such as “emotional distress”, lost years of life, and individual expenditures on cigarettes and alcohol. These are personal costs, not social costs. They also fail to include the economic benefits the alcohol and cigarette industry gives to the UK in terms of employment and government revenue. Most of these studies should be relegated to the bin of junk statistics.

 

In fact, smokers and heavy drinkers do not cost the state more. Though smokers may cost more during their working lives, but non-smokers require greater expenditure in pensions, nursing care and welfare payments. Chronic diseases associated with old age are far more expensive than the lethal diseases associated with smoking and alcoholism. Smokers and drinkers are not a burden on the state, and the myth of saints subsidising sinners should not be used to justify tax rises."

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/the-wages-of-sin-taxes-the-true-cost-of-taxing-alcohol-tobacco-and-other-vices

 

Assuming that "Chronic diseases associated with old age are far more expensive than the lethal diseases associated with smoking and alcoholism", then age-related euthanasia (80 seems plenty to me) has got to be the logical way forward.

[RogerC]

Tracker - 2012-05-26 9:55 PMAs an avid non smoker and a very rare drinker who dislikes most wines and barely tolerates beer I would ban all personal imports of booze and tobacco products and let those who simply must indulge in these dreadful habits do so to the full benefit of the UK treasury. Consider that when smoking and drinking make you ill you will be first to expect the UK NHS to sort out your own self induced health problems is it not more fair that you should have contributed towards that cost rather than allow everyone else to subsidise you.Bloody selfish I call it - so yes it is a form of greed, self indulgence and selfishness to avoid paying UK duty to extreme levels just because it is legal.That ought to get some interesting responses!

 

When are you nominating yourself for 'Dictator of the UK' election.....what a self centered load of cobblers.

 

You make Jeremy Clarkson look positively innocent.

 

[Guest Tracker]

I wondered how long it would before somebody resorted to insults as this always represents a failure of the poster to be able to think of a logical reasoned response and usually indicates that a thread has about run it's useful course!!

 

Still some interesting points coming out and once again - as ever (well almost!) - Derek shows how to reply without acrimony. Thanks Derek!

 

Anyone else care to place a balanced view?

[crinklystarfish]

Y'know malc, I've been meaning to say it for some time, I do like how you can pull the rug in so few words. 

[Barryd999]

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:14 AM

 

I wondered how long it would before somebody resorted to insults as this always represents a failure of the poster to be able to think of a logical reasoned response and usually indicates that a thread has about run it's useful course!!

 

Still some interesting points coming out and once again - as ever (well almost!) - Derek shows how to reply without acrimony. Thanks Derek!

 

Anyone else care to place a balanced view?

 

Errr. Yes. Your just wrong!

[Guest Tracker]

Barryd999 - 2012-05-27 10:17 AM

Errr. Yes. You're just wrong!

 

And so is your grammar!

 

That may well be true Barry but thanks for saying so politely.

 

In a debate it never hurts to put forward an alternative point of view for discussion!

[Guest pelmetman]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-05-27 9:49 AM

Assuming that "Chronic diseases associated with old age are far more expensive than the lethal diseases associated with smoking and alcoholism", then age-related euthanasia (80 seems plenty to me) has got to be the logical way forward.

 

Never smoked.....both parents were chain smokers and we had a tobacconists plus the cheap fags avaiable in the Navy.......its a wonder I only have drink, gluttony and idleness as hobbies....

 

Ooop's I mean vices :D

[crinklystarfish]

The whole morality of tax should be considered in the light of how our political masters squander it.

If they don't simply steal it, they incredibly frequently fritter it away, and often in a way that benefits those in society who do nothing more than laze about, steal, and spew out the next generation of parasitic progeny.

I'd happily pay more tax to anyone who had the morality and wisdom to use it wisely.

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2012-05-27 10:40 AM

 

.......its a wonder I only have drink, gluttony and idleness as hobbies....

 

Ooop's I mean vices :D

 

 

Does that mean you've given up on lust now then Dave ?

 

 

:-|

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2012-05-27 12:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-05-27 10:40 AM

 

.......its a wonder I only have drink, gluttony and idleness as hobbies....

 

Ooop's I mean vices :D

 

 

Does that mean you've given up on lust now then Dave ?

 

 

:-|

 

No I forgot that one Malc ;-) ........... i still demand my matrimonial rights............

 

 

 

Once a year whether I want it or not :D

[RogerC]

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:14 AMI wondered how long it would before somebody resorted to insults as this always represents a failure of the poster to be able to think of a logical reasoned response and usually indicates that a thread has about run it's useful course!!Still some interesting points coming out and once again - as ever (well almost!) - Derek shows how to reply without acrimony. Thanks Derek!Anyone else care to place a balanced view?

 

I hardly think saying you would ban things because you are intolerant them or do not partake thereof it is a balanced view?

 

[malc d]

crinklystarfish - 2012-05-27 10:15 AM

 

Y'know malc, I've been meaning to say it for some time, I do like how you can pull the rug in so few words. 

 

 

I think it would be very rude to ignore people who have even supplied their own rug.

 

 

;-)

[Bulletguy]

Tracker - 2012-05-27 8:14 AM

 

Some interesting comments and it never fails to amaze me how those who choose to smoke and booze will so vehemently defend their habits and blame everyone else but themselves for everything from taxation to the risks of a shortened lifespan whilst 'enjoying' their addictions!

 

 

Prior to the introduction of BOSIPP, both smokers and non-smokers lived quite peacefully alongside one another. But since then smokers have been turned into 'social pariahs' with anti-smokers waging venomous campaigns of hatred and acting with extreme vindictiveness towards anyone daring to be seen with a cigarette in their mouth. To me the anti-smoker Fascist is a different person to what I call non-smokers.

 

So it is little wonder that smokers have now gone on the defensive and started hitting back. It's not about 'blaming everyone but themselves'....it's about standing up for yourself.

 

Smokers are an easy target for Government to hit.....and they get hit hard at every Budget. Once again i'm back to the point of going on the defensive. Government tax smokers because 1) it proves popular with the anti-smoke Fascists and, 2) it brings in shed loads of Revenue. But if they dropped that tax to a more reasonable and sensible level, the shortfall would have to be made up by those like yourself who don't smoke paying increased tax.......and so far I haven't met one person who would honestly be happy about that.

 

However, the upside to dropping tobacco tax in the UK and bringing it more in line with that of our European counterparts would result in less 'baccy runs' over to Belgium with the smokers choosing to purchase in the UK instead. But Government are so thick they cannot figure that.

 

As mentioned previously smokers currently contribute £10 billion a year in taxation plus their normal NI contributions. The Exchequer continues to increase this by whacking punitive taxation on tobacco. So when you ask, "is it not more fair that you (smokers) should have contributed towards that cost rather than allow everyone else to subsidise you." The figures alone tell you that smokers have not only contributed hugely to the cost of Healthcare through the billions in taxation, which you as a non-smoker do not pay, and far from being 'subsidised by everyone else' (by which I assume you meant non-smokers?), if anything it's smokers who have subsidised you and helped to keep your tax levels down.

 

 

Tracker - 2012-05-27 8:14 AMOf course I fill up my van with French diesel before the ferry - but I also arrive in France with half a tankful so that I do not have to panic search and buy on a near empty tank - and the balance of that one tankful lasts me the journey home and certainly not a month or six months as some are advocating for their cheap booze and fags.

 

 

That hardly qualifies as double standards, but since it has been aired, it could be argued that those who seek to avoid paying duty on items consumed in the UK yet benefit fully from UK standards of living and health care truly are themselves guilty of applying double standards. You can't have it both ways and accuse me of double standards whilst denying it applies to yourselves.

 

 

When moralising over individuals habits which you personally disapprove of and accusing them of 'greed, self indulgence and tax avoidance', then it's prudent to ensure you are following your own high standards first.

 

If I felt as strongly as you do about paying UK taxes, then when returning from a European trip I would ensure my van was running on vapour so that I had to fill up with fuel after exiting the Port. Not difficult to do as there are at least four Stations within yards of the Port where you can then relax as you honour those high morals, pay that higher fuel price, and retain ones dignity and self pride.

 

On the matter of 'tax avoidance' you refer to, I would suggest your time would be better spent chastising super rich Tory Party funders (bungers), Bankers, Oligarchs, and major UK based International companies busy 'squireling' billions away into the myriad of Offshore and Luxembourg accounts where just one 'shift' of capital per day will net them millions instead of the Treasury, rather than 'joe soap' looking to save a few quid on his baccy every six months or so.

 

[Guest Tracker]

Same old same old - hasn't anyone got anything new to add!!

 

I do have to wonder why smokers are so indignant about non smokers disliking the pollution emanating from them when our creator - if such is your belief - created us without a fag in our mouths and not with one!

 

Please folks, don't mind me - drink and smoke all you like - just keep paying the taxes and using the tax free hoarding to stoke up your needs and reliances to buy yet more at home!!

[Bulletguy]

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:21 PM

 

Same old same old - hasn't anyone got anything new to add!!

Others have made points but unless they fall into your criteria and meet with your approval (ie 'hatred for smokers') you don't want to read it let alone listen to it. You asked for anyone to share a 'balanced view', yet as has been pointed out to you by another poster, your own intolerant views are far from 'balanced'. You cannot accept that other people have a different opinion to you, lead a different lifestyle, and indulge things which meet with your disapproval.

 

 

 

 

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:21 I do have to wonder why smokers are so indignant about non smokers disliking the pollution emanating from them when our creator - if such is your belief - created us without a fag in our mouths and not with one!

I came from the womb of my mother totally naked.....yet within a matter of hours I was being dressed in clothes, but my Creator created me without clothes.

 

You of course may be the exception?

 

 

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:21 Please folks, don't mind me...

We don't. Why should we?

 

 

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:21 ...drink and smoke all you like -

We do.

 

 

Tracker - 2012-05-27 10:21..just keep paying the taxes and using the tax free hoarding to stoke up your needs and reliances to buy yet more at home!!

Your cynicism has run out of puff (forgive the pun), but as suggested before (which I notice you ignored), you would gain more credibility venting your spleen at those indulging mega scale tax avoidance in the multi millions on a daily basis rather than having a pop at a few pensioners saving a few bob buying their 'smokes' outside the UK.

 

 

 

[PeteH]

Hi

 

The Last (but one) time we returned from the "Spanish Winter". (We no longer do it , As it is Cheaper to go to America for 5 Months!!!) We over-nighted about 20 miles out from Calais. (nice little site with attached "Aire"). When we actually got onto Calais Docks we where given the "once-over" by BRITISH C&E/Border officers. It transpires that they have an "arrangement" with the French authorities which allows them to deal with UK registered vehicles before they embark for the UK. Conversing with the officers it became clear that what they where most interested in was Illegal Immigrants!!!. My 20by5litre Boxes of Spanish Rioca under the "rack and roll bed" was of absolutely no interest to them (one years personal consumption!!) They asked to look in ALL the lockers of which there are a few on an R-V!! the bathroom, and on the roof!!. As I said to the the team leader having just done 20 miles at between 50 and 60 mph it would be a very "sticky" immigrant who would still be up there!!!. His reply was to the effect that it had been tried!!.

 

I also used to arrive in France with almost empty Fuel Tank. and Fill to the brim before embarking (80 US Gallons is a Big Saving). Just as ALL the Continental Truck drivers do, Some of them even have extra tanks fitted Under their Trailers, !!! Which combined with a vastly lower rate of taxation on transport vehicles in the rest of the (corrupt) "EU" is what gives them an unfair advantage over UK Transport companies!!. One of my Ex employers has already gone "bust" trying to "compete" on the Sloping playing Field. There is nothing wrong with the French People, the vast majority being extremely hospitable,. It`s their Political system that stinks!! as well as the "Napoleonic" legal system which presumes guilt and not innocence.

 

As For Smoking? Keep it up lads and lasses, but not in my presence. as the TAX is keeping My Tax bill down in a very difficult Time!!!

 

Pete

[Guest JudgeMental]

above just remindeed me....when I came back last week, at terminal van was searched by C&E while waiting to board, they where just looking for people..

 

On road outside 3 lorries where parked going thought the boxes on back...presumably because the fines etc...can be real heavy if caught with people on board

[crinklystarfish]

To help in getting to grips with the points made.

Does anyone know of the actual public funding required per year to treat / support / provide ongoing care for those suffering from smoking induced health problems - plus the cost of campaigns to try to reduce smoking?

I have no issue with anyone who chooses to smoke as long as they aren't permitted to inflict it upon those who choose not to. I also think it would sidestep much of the debate if we were to simply not tax tobacco at all, but then if any adult needed treatment for smoking related illness, they pay for the treatment and ongoing care out of their own pocket. Same applies for booze, and putting pies in your face until you can't even waddle to the toilet etc.

Also, why do many people who smoke consider it perfectly acceptable to discard their cig buts wherever they please without the slightest consideration for anyone or anything else? Many smokers really don't help their own credibility in this regard.

Not sure if if this makes me a fascist or not.

[Guest Tracker]

Agreement or not there is of course no reason why French customs would object to a van load of UK duty payables when the French tax has already been paid in France?

 

The latest scourge of smokers is all hanging around cafe and pub doorways making it a gauntlet to run for any non smokers trying to enter or leave plus almost all Pub outdoor eating areas and beer gardens are still polluted by those with no consideration for others who may be eating nearby.

 

The sheer arrogance of smokers continues to astound me! Kill yourself if you wish but please show sufficient consideration to leave the innocent bystanders out of your death wish !

 

I bet smokers would be the first to complain if someone on the next table played music not to their taste and too loud - what's the difference? Chemical pollution or noise pollution?

 

I do hope that nobody is taking this banter too seriously!