And they finally got her father on the line who was stateside.....

And he was livid!

She was bounced, but her father contacted his senator LOL

who lodged an enquiry at the US consulate in London

about the abuse his daughter had endured

@GayotFow .... and? dont leave it hanging!

Obviously it was per the rules. It's the rules that are inhuman and of course the people executing them too.

@Moo that's pretty much the end, it actually went before the police complaints commission and i gave evidence there

AH! I forget.......

@GayotFow please tell me the complaint didnt get upheld

you should have seen HER BLOG ENTRY

It was like we were all on different planets

@Moo no, it was dismissed

thank goodness, there is still sanity in the world

it only got to the police because of the father's connection

I had another American girl......

happily, the worst experience I have had solely extends to trying to leave Lebanon while the Israeli airforce were bombing

The IO asked her what she was in the UK for and she said, I'm here for 3 days of all out bonzo sex

exactly those words

So they questioned her further and I got called in

And I managed to spring her, so she got the full 6 months

And she was drop-dead gorgeous too

She's still a friend of mine on FB

@GayotFow any special favours?

She ended up getting married to that guy and they moved to CA and had a daughter

then they got divorced and now she's living in Kent

Lecturer at the University of Canterbury

Once during the time when I was single and living in Marylebone

My cleaning lady was from Skopje and she was HOT

I mean she would turn every head in the pub

And one day from out of the blue.......

she asked me to marry her for 900 pounds and no sex

lol

@Moo Not exactly the kind of experience I'ld be keen to make either.

I just checked and that answer has had 14 up votes since I wiki'd it.

Wow, all these stories @Gayot xD

LOL, you get a feel for what they get up to

@Jan hes the type of guy that could make an evening in a quiet pub go very quickly, I think :)

me? I just get to bribe policemen in Uganda

IO's have gone on public record saying that they do not trust American women in general because they lie

I will go. @chx you should undelete. @cmast

@CMaster you should say thank you for trying to help

?

my edit

unrelated facebook.com/LookatLiverpool/photos/…

ah yeah, it was helpful

I'd meant to link it and forgot

@Moo Next time I'm in Britain I should totally try to meet Gayot in a pub ;D

@Jan if you get in... after all, apparently UK immigration is staffed by jackbooted thugs whose sole enjoyment in life is to make you spend the rest of eternity in a well lit room in your own soiled clothing...

that's not as far as from the truth as it sounds from what I gather (it's still an exaggeration)

As of now I can claim freedom of movement. And I can claim that until 2 years + x from now.

Unfortunately, x is currently at Mrs May's discreetion.

I suspect the UK won't trigger Article 50.

@Jan its not even 2 years + x

@chx there would be massive legal issues if they dont

@jan the "2 years" is solely if an agreement is not arrived at

Yeah, looking at it from a logical point of view, then 2 years + x is the worst possible scenario.

could be 30 days from now...

The agreement has to be unanimous, doesn't it? I think I'm pretty safe xD

@Moo no legal issues, the referendum is non-binding

especially not after the election

theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/22/… this says it'll happen

or not :)

it's -- surprise -- very complicated

@JonathanReez that doesnt mean there wont be legal issues

if the government ignores the electorates decision in a government-called referendum, then that government wont be getting back into power any time soon

unfortunately, we dont have a strong opposition, so that means a coalition party

which invariably means the Tories wont be part of it, it will have to be Labour/SDP

who will still ignore the result

but that means the UK will be screwed because the SDP will have power

well Cameron called the referendum and his government is already gone

@chx technically its still the same government that was elected

brb, food

it's like Lincoln's axe which has had both head and handle replaced.

errr

SDP were defunct about 20 years ago

@Moo nope, not at all

SNP then

The government were never elected

I was about to ask whether you meant SNP when you said SDP.

@CMaster if you want to be that pedantic...

@Moo You said "technically"

and were pretty much completely wrong about the technicalities

@CMaster and technically I am correct - the same party is in power, there has been no transfer of power to another party, how that party decides to make governing decisions is opaque here :)

@Moo The same party are in power. THis means that de facto things carry on largley the same

@CMaster how can you say that with Boris as foreign secretary?! outrageous!

anyhow, really brb, food :)

but technically its a completely new government, and both both technically and de facto there are no elections to government

Opinions?

The comment is valid

travel.stackexchange.com/posts/77283/revisions

and travel.stackexchange.com/questions/77278/…

The country redirect thing isn't true, if I type in the address with .it, .es, .pl etc. I access the corresponding country's site. (Only Switzerland redirected me to France for some reason … Dunno why tbh.)

but if you type in blablacar.com you will be redirected to the territory you are in and that redirect is hard to expunge

That makes sense, though ^^

ah

oh man I'm a few hours behind that conversation on the tech lady that got kicked out of the UK

they fixed it

there's a country select in the bottom navigation bar now

@blackbird let's not restart it. People who come from free countries have no experience or knowledge of these sorts of things and they will readily side with their government over who they perceive a crazy woman. It's sad but one of life's bigger lessons is that it's impossible to change fundamental world views. You can't explain colors to a boulder.

@chx While I agree with you on the first two-and-a-half points, please do not assume the side I'm on when I haven't revealed it.

you didn't, quite a few others in the chat did.

and I can't blame them, really

And I'm not entirely sure if I saw anybody call her crazy.

@MarkMayo I saw Mark's avatar a couple of weeks ago, and asked a coworker if it was Mark Mayo.

yeah I don't recall seeing her being called crazy, of course in these situations people usually blame her for her situation

@chx there are always two sides to any story. I would never believe either 100%. I know which I would give more credence to - the one with greater independent oversight and audit...

@blackbird I'd say @GayotFow was somewhat implying that

@chx heh - that is of course very true :-)

right

I see

Gayot said worse but I can't find it ATM

...really - I didn't see that anywhere, and I did have a good read

As I heard about this a while back

it is of interest to me

And I can't repeat this enough times: absolutely nothing else matters but A) confiscating her phone B) interviewing her in a sleep deprived state.

And that is torture. This is very clear cut and there's no way around it.

@chx oh - no. I disagree with that. From a country protection perspective, if there is potential for her to be an illegal immigrant or criminal, confiscating the phone so she has to use a phone that can be listened in to sounds sensible.

Regarding the sleep thing - hmmm - do we think her blog says the truth there?

Or is she perhaps bending the truth a bit

...

it definitely sounds plausible.

I don't know - nor do you

So why take a side?

Oh, we've been through the phone aspect quite a few times. Let's not rediscuss it. The other thing: Some people still look okay, even though they've been up for 36 hours. From the point of view of the immigration officer, he asked her whether she's up for the interview (she said so herself in the blog). Nobody was forcing her to be awake (also what she said) and nobody was forcing her to take the interview right now.

Because I can't stand misogynists assholes make such remarks about how a fascist leaning UK treats a woman?

Hell, any person.

I don't really like people calling others 'misogynist assholes' no matter their reasoning, and compared to other countries the UK is far away from being 'fascist leaning'.

Agree with @chx here

no grounds for her being treated the way she was

even though she came less prepared than she thought she was

@chx but that's nonsense. This is more likely to be an angry person having a go at an admittedly strict organisation - we don't know how she was treated. Her blog says one thing. And as I said before, there is better oversight of what immigration do.

As I said above: the difference is treating a person as a visitor vs as an enemy.

So my immediate assumption would be that she is deliberately skewing the truth

There's nothing in there that any Brexiters would find problematic and that's also the problem.

@chx no it isn't. The difference is between one story and another.

why would you think she's making it up ?

I am 100% sure everything went by the rules.

And I am sure the story is reasonably true

Some details might be different

(In case you haven't guessed - I'm deliberately taking the devil's advocate viewpoint, because I think anyone responding to an individual's blog, unsupported by evidence - hell, most social media - is just starting from a false position)

Well, there are documents

@chx If you weren't aware, many folks who voted for brexit didn't want to leave the EU

Why are you so focussed on being treated 'as a visitor'? You get the visitor treatment at the very first desk. Once you leave that desk (I think she called it 'walk of shame' there) in the wrong direction, you are suspicious. And a country has every right to treat suspicious people like suspicious people.

@chx no point conflating this with Brexit

and those support that she was interviewed without sleep and there's no way she would've refused an offer to sleep. And that's enough.

@chx did you see what Jan said up there?

> From the point of view of the immigration officer, he asked her whether she's up for the interview (she said so herself in the blog). Nobody was forcing her to be awake (also what she said) and nobody was forcing her to take the interview right now.

that's easy to say

"He smirked and said if I didn’t feel up for it then, he could come back later… The implication being he could leave me to tough it out in that dark, dirty room sans sleep for a few more hours without contact with the outside world."

@chx which immediately brings things out of truth and into her opinion, based in nothing

Does that sound his answer to " I tried to explain I’d been 22 hours without sleep and was worried it might affect my ability to answer coherently." was "Oh that's bad. Why don't we check you into a hotel and get back to this in ten hours?"

how did she create this implication?

how did she decide he was smirking? That's crazy

@chx I was about to go look for that quote. She is reading an implication into what the IO said. She is seeing him smirk (it could have been any facial expression).

Of course.

If there's any question, it's whether she was offered an opportunity of a hotel room

She says "fter I got home I would learn that I had the option to request time to rest in a hotel."

It sounds to me noone made the offer

And honestly, that fits better everything I know about border officials, sorry.

There's an imbalance of power there you're not seeing, when they're holding you and they decide when you go or how long you stay

@chx Only scary border officials I have ever met were the US ones

and they took her phone so she couldn't look up the rules or contact people to ask for them

@chx why did she not say she was tired and wanted to have some sleep?

the whole thing fits together and it's a very ugly picture

@chx no - they took her phone. The rest of that sentence is made up by you

@RoryAlsop she did say she is tired!

@RoryAlsop "I tried to explain I’d been 22 hours without sleep "

quite frankly I think they took her phone by default

@blackbird exactly

doesn't mean it's right

there was no point in that

@chx "if I didn’t feel up for it then, he could come back later… "

Again: it's not the specific officers in this story. It's the rules which established that her phone needs to taken and an entirely hostile environment to be created.

@blackbird from a risk perspective of course there are good reasons for that

What risk? She is going to dial Captain America to bust her out?

what are the risks ?

mind you apparently there were phones from which at least phone calls could be made

so really the only point in confiscating a phone is to make her more vulnerable

Sorry but it fits a terrible picture and one that matches border expectations.

Look at it from the perspective of Immigration - many suspicious individuals are trying to lie to the border folks to illegally enter the country. They give a story to the the IO. This is then followed up and confirmed or otherwise. If they have the opportunity to change details and let an outside person know the details it can make them more convincing

As I said before, having a phone that can be listened in on helps prevent this

the point is that you're treated as a criminal before anything is confirmed

@chx no - it's not the point at all

Again: both per the blog post and per Gayot there are phones where you can make phone calls

The point in confiscating a phone can also have been to deny access to the internet, so she can't silently mail people that she needs a different invitation letter or whatnot. They can hear her talking in the room if she uses the phone provided.

@chx exactly

So you can still contact your accomplice

@chx and be overheard

at which point the advantage for a criminal has gone

Yeah because you have a translator for every language at hand to translate the phone calls.

@chx nope - but you do record everything

and can get it translated

well it seems things went a bit too fast for that... but what do i know.

Judging by the blog post, it sounds very much like she was considered suspicious, and by her behaviour escalated things further

@chx exactly - I don't know either

doesn't matter who she would have called, if they're already looking at it from a frame of suspicion

Which is why I'm trying to say don't take one side or other as gospel

what gospel man, look even if she did break the rules and she was in the wrong, that's no way to treat people

Although I'm still very interested what her actual ways out (that Gayot hinted existed) would have been.

@blackbird no - the description of how she has been treated is very much undefined

@Jan agreed

Let's establish these: 1) she was sleep deprived and she at least tried to communicate this over 2) the staff knew of this because she just came from the USA so the humane treatment is offering sleep even before the interview.

Is this controversial?

@chx why not establish that the staff offered her a break

That's inconsequential

and that she had told them that she was okay to progress to interview, so 2 is maybe not correct at all

how on earth could she have known if she says "let's do this later" then she even has the option of a hotel room?

@chx Wait, stop, you have an incorrect assumption in there.

do i

i am curious

even 1 may not be correct

She wrote that she was sleep deprived.

That's all we know

The IOs have absolutely no clue when and how long she slept before arriving at their desk. It is an intercontinental flight, she could have been sleeping the entire time. And people like me get very good sleeps on planes. So there is no requirement to assume her to have been awake for x hourse of the flight.

Oh come on

@Jan I always sleep well on planes as well :-)

there are extremely few people who can sleep or sleep well on a plane

sure I sleep well too but I don't assume everyone else does

don't forget she came from Portland which is 8h behind London time

@chx why do you think that

the default should be, again, if you don't like the word visitor then just humane: "Are you OK? Do you need sleep?"

@chx why

why should that be the starting point

@chx Which is implied by the 'if you don't feel up for it, we can continue this later'.

Because they know a) there will be an interview later b) interviewing a sleep deprived person is torture. That's why?

It's fucking not

yeah - it is

if you had been held in a dim cell for hours why would you presume "later" means you get into a hotel room?

I challenge the assumption of there being only very few people who can sleep well on a plane.

@chx it doesn't - you're bundling two concepts into one for no good reason

@chx later means later

I don't see how you could get some sleep in that room if you asked for a later interview

For all they knew, she could have had first class (or equivalent) with proper beds. They don't ask for her boarding pass.

Are we seriously debating whether a kind question should be a part of this shit?

@chx no

I don't see where it was implied that 'later' means 'but you have to spend the time between now and later in that room.'

Every. fucking. where.

Where else would she go ?

Have you ever been in prison? Have you ever talked to someone who has been?

They didn't offer a hotel room

@chx that's your assumption. It wouldn't be mine from reading all this.

Come now

@blackbird at this stage they were assuming her saying she was fine to go ahead with the interview would not mean she needs to go for a sleep anywhere

to me it's crystal clear they did everything to make her feel vulnerable within the confines of their rules

No but where do you think she would have gone to rest if she asked for a later interview ?

as I said above, she should be glad she weren't made to wear an orange jumpsuit

@chx and to me it is definitely not that. To me it really looks like her blog is deliberately worded to exaggerate and twist things to make the experience sound as bad as possible. But as we weren't there, deciding what was intended or not is pointless

@RoryAlsop She says "Gosh, I haven't slept in 21 hours". IO says "I can come back later if you don't feel like you are up to it" She rightly presumes she gets a break in that dim holding cell because why would she assume otherwise??

@RoryAlsop look no wrong being skeptical, I do feel you are taking sides though, despite what you say

I do come from a country behind the Iron Curtain

@blackbird As I said, I'm deliberately taking the opposing position to point out the fallacies inherent in taking her blog post as gospel

And so I am more ready to believe as to what have transpired here

neither side is likely to be the truth

@chx Britain is really not an Iron Curtain country - we really don't do that sort of thing here

I don't see you criticizing the IO's behaviour

To make this a scene out of a stalinist prison, you only need to add a baton swinging between the officer's knees.

It's far from exemplary really

No, the IO did everything by the despicable rules.

@blackbird of course not, @chx is doing that

@chx I think you need a bit more than that.

@CMaster just mark the question, saves you time and we can go in and investigate ;)

@Jan No, you don't more than that. Want me to read Béla Szász firsthand memories to you?

@AndrewGrimm that's hilarious. We have your guys coming into our office again tomorrow for a planning session.

Although I've only got about another week there, so nearly didn't realise

@chx I'm pretty sure that he is going to offer a lot more in details than just the baton swinging, right?

This is exactly how breaking down a person starts. Bereft of agency, held in a cell, sleep deprived.

The beating comes later.

this is why I am livid

and whoever wrote the rulebook knew this quite well

for this is known for a very long time

@chx because you expect this to be the process our IO's are supposed to use? Hmmmm - expectations may skew your perceived intentions

The problem is that her description of events even if details are missing, as I said, fits a picture and not a pretty one.

Maybe they don't plan on acting that way, but they know they can get away with it if they do

It also fits other pictures - you expect that one that you have knowledge of. I may expect a completely different one that is much more common from my experience

If three years of chemical PhD research has taught me anything, then it is to not assume a picture just because many elements fit.

Or try to fit into one of many possible options

there are no options in this. I am standing on very simple grounds: the staff should know , ok, at least a not small portion of the people landing at Heathrow will be fucking dead on their feet and they should be treated with a little kindness instead of being treated as a common criminal.

Simple? nope. Everything Britain currently is against this.

There was a rule for the internet somewhere of not assuming malice when stupidity is also a valid explanation. We can apply that rule here, too.

exactly, just because it's your job to be suspicious doesn't mean you should treat people like crap

Goes both ways, obviously.

actually? no

the situation is very strongly assymetrical

Those who hold the power need to lead by treating the other side human and can't ask for it until they do

You know when this sort of thing happens in other places to citizens of countries like the UK people get all outraged and lecture about human rights and such

oh of course

But when countries like the UK or the US are applying the rules, then it's all fine

and then come the bombers with the democracy seeds to plant in other countries fertile crescent

@blackbird Never said that.

we have seen it

as i said, this is a country-level thing

Five Eyes

One CCTV per ten people

These are quite interconnected

@chx no

@chx and no

yes :)

they are entirely separate

You think they are connected

that doesn't make it so

Sure.

Look the only reason they can do this is because it's the UK and they can justify this with "security"

I'm not a fan of the amount of CCTV at all - but if you honestly think that our security services are competent enough to have this wondrous conspiracy-theorist's nightmare then you are very far off the mark

@blackbird hahahaha - no

No ? What's the justification for this treatment then ?

@blackbird you are still making assumptions as to her treatment that in my opinion are not justified by any evidence

@blackbird it's a lost case, they believe there was no such treatment and she is a deluded woman dreaming up shit

@chx No - I don't believe that either.

@chx No, we didn't say that. Look at the starred post.

but you or I have no way to know

I do not believe 100% , no way.

I listed the few things that I do believe to happened or not happened and that's plenty.

so why try and go through the entire - country X is terrible because look how they treated Y, when no-one knows how they were treated

You have listed things you believe happened, and I have tried to point out why they are not able to be relied on

belief is not enough here

it is what gets people in all sorts of trouble, it inspires crazy things like Brexit (many of those folks believed social and mainstream media without questioning it)

It inspires lynchings

I suggest questioning everything - and if you don't have enough evidence to show the truth, either get more or leave it

Once you have definite, provable truth of something - that's a much better position to start from

And that's an absurd position, you'd need a voice record of everything that transpired from the moment she gotten into this to prove she was not offered a hotel room

Reviewing my own border experiences everywhere including but not solely the UK makes it way too easy to believe that such an offer was not voiced.

Easy enough?

And this obviously puts the officials to an advantage, because the burden of proof is on her, which again goes back to what I was saying about an imbalance of power

And burden of negative proof is on her!

You know... why not print a summary on the cell walls including the sleep option? Print what's up and what will happen on a piece of paper and hand it over so people have something to read while waiting for the interview?

Or you are saying all those happened but she rather went into an interview unslept?

@chx That is one of the best comments I've heard from you in this discussions, and one of the greatest question marks.

@MarkMayo I hadn't really wanted all the comments removing (some were relevant)

I just wanted @moo 's rants about the rail system gone

(and the related discussion)

hey, they were worthwhile rants

@Moo but not really relevant to the answer

meh, the UK rail system was involved... ;)

Because Gayot allured to it in the answer, here is the Chief's report of the inspection of Heathrow Airport border forces Conducted July 2015.

> However, what is overall a positive picture in terms of core business is somewhat let down by failings in basic procedures and practices, which with more effective management oversight and assurance should have identified and tackled. (ibid)