SMOKE AND MIRRORS COURTESY OF THE U.K. BORDER AGENCY.

I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the inept UKBA with regards to the illegal immigrant/asylum seeker holding pen in Larne Co Antrim which was once our police station.
Sadly now especially at weekends I fear there is probably nothing more than a desk Sgt,( probably filling his face with ethnic takeaway food), and some cardboard cut-outs of police officiers.
Never mind as long as all the illegal aliens and bogus asylum seekers are kept warm and well fed, local taxpayers and ratepayers can go and hang!

I wasn't expecting any great results from my request in an increasingly "Orwellian" society where we are fast losing any freedoms we have.Bear in mind that I submitted this request as a private citizen and not a representative of a political party.
However the response I received was so "jaw dropping" in it's lack of information and bureaucratic smokescreen language that even I, who is well aware that the U.K.is no longer a democracy, was taken aback.




BLOT ON THE LANDSCAPE. HOLDING CENTRE IN LARNE. 

Readers should remember that our local traitor Councillors in Larne lambasted the British National Party for opposing this holding centre in the town. We were at the time called "racist scaremongers" by the DUP
( Democratic Unionist Party) and others. In fact it was Bobby McKee of the DUP who said of illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers " They came here to do the jobs we don't want to do".
Incredible that people are duped time and time again into voting for people like these who are so blinded by political correctness they can't see the damage that has been inflicted to our nation by uncontrolled mass immigration and bogus asylum.

If mass immigration and asylum is so beneficial to the U.K. why does the UKBA not reveal the information requested. Have they something to hide? I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes! They need to hide the true horror of the open door "ethnic cleansing" policy started by the treacherous war monger Blair and allowed to continue unabated by the "pantomime horse" That is our coalition government!

It's also beyond believe that the UKBA quotes costs (£600) as one of the reasons for not giving the requested information when the UK has spent a fortune on legal aid for Islamic extremist terrorists and inquiries demanded by the IRA such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry which cost us in excess of £200 million!
We also continue to lavish £12 billion plus per anum on other countries while our own people suffer!

They of course also said it wouldn't be in the public interest to divulge the true cost of the ethnic cleansing of the British race. If it was not so serious a matter it would be funny. Unfortunately our imminent destruction is far from funny!




UK BORDER FARCE. WE ARE NOT AMUSED!

I copied some of the responses to my questions below.It's heavy going but I would ask you to persevere. You now surely can be in no doubt about the kind of corrupt dictatorship in which we now live.

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email dated 26 November 2012 regarding Larne House
Short-Term Holding Facility. Your request falls to be dealt with under the
Freedom of lnformation Act 2000. You have asked the following:

"With regards to the immigration removal Centre Larne House 2 Hope Street,
Larne. Co Antrim BT40 1UR,I would like the following.
1) Since the opening of this facility how many detaineeis have passed
through it?

lnformation on people entering, leaving and in detention, held at Larne House
short term holding facility is available at the end of each quarter and can be
accessed from table dt.01.q, dt.03.q, dt.06.q, dt.10.g and dt.11.q of the latest
detention tables:
h tt p : //www ; h o m e off i ce . o o v . u k/ p u b I i ca t i o n s/ s ci e n ce -res e a,rc h -
statisticslregearch-statistics/immigration-asvlum-researsh/imnjiqration-tabsq3-
2_0 1 2ld ete ntio n -q 3-20 1 2-tabs ?view=B ina ry
Further information on detention may be found in the latest release of
lmmigration Sfafr'sfics, available'from the Home Office Science, Research and
Statistics landing page at:
http ://homeoffice. gov. uk/science-researchlresearchstat
i sti cs/m i q rati o n/m i q ra t i o n-stali sti cs 1 /

2) Of these detainees how many have been deported from the United
Kingdom?

3) During the period between now and the opening of the facility, how
many detainees have been given leave to remain in the United
Kingdom and been housed by local authorities?

Under section 12 of the Act, the UK Border Agency, as part of the Home
Office, is not obliged to comply with an information request where to do so
would exceed the cost limit.

I can confirm that we do hold the information you have requested in questions
2 and 3 but have estimated that the cost of answering these would exceed the
£600 limit and we are therefore unable to comply with it. This is because from
the published data, 559 people passed through Larne House between July
2011 and the end of September 2012 and so to enable us to provide you with
the information requested we would have to check both electronic and paper
records for each individual at disproportionate costs.
The £600 limit applies to all central government departments and is based on
work being carried out at a rate of £25 per hour, which equates to 24 hours of
work per request. Prescribed costs include those which cover the cost of
locating and retrieving information, and preparing our response to you. They
do not include considering whether any information is exempt from disclosure,
overheads such as heating or lighting, or disbursements such as
photocopying or postage.

Section 16 of the Act states that we must include advice, wherever possible,
on how you might refine the request to bring it under the limit. For example,
reducing the time period however, we would still have to check through
individual records which we estimate would still exceed the cost limit.
Even if a new request were to fall below the f600 limit, the information you
request might be withheld under the terms of a number of substantive
exemptions contained in part ll of the Freedom of lnformation Act 2000.
These exemptions could also make it necessary for us to extend the period of
responding beyond the usual 20 working day target if they involve having to
consider the public interest balancing test.

4) What was the total cost to build this facility within the existing PSNI
facility?

5) What has been the total cost to the UK Border Agency of running this
facility since it's opening?"' . ' -.,:

With regards to questions 4 and 5, I can confirm that we do hold this
information but I have, however, decided not to communicate to you the
information that you have requested pursuant to the exemption under section
43(2) of the Freedom'bi lnformation Act 2000. Section 43(2) allows us to
exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
commercial interests of any persons.

lf we were to disclose the information you have requested, this would be likely
to prejudice the commercial interests of both the Home Office and those
companies with whom the Home Office enters into contracts.
This exemption requires us to consider whether, in every respect the ,public
interest in .maintaining the exemption stated above, outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information
We have considered the public interest in disclosing the information to you.
There will be a public interest in immediate disclosure to ensure that there is
full transparency in the Home Office's use of public funds and in particular to
maintain the Department's accountability to taxpayers. Disclosure of this
information would also enable the public to assess whether or not the Home
Office is getting best value for money in terms of  its contracts with those. who
manage its immigration detention facilities.
We have also considered the public-interest in maintaining.the.exepptionrto
communicate. There is a public interest in Government departments, being
able to secure contracts that represent value for money and anything that
would undermine this is not in the public interest. Value for money.can be
best obtained where there is a healthy competitive environment, coupled with
the protection of Government's commercial relationships with industry, were
this not the case, there would be a risk that:
Companies would be discouraged from dealing with the public sector, fearing
disclosure of information that may damage them commercially, or
Companies would withhold information where possible, making the choice of
the best contractor more uncertain as it would be based on limited and
censored data.
We have therefore concluded that the balance of the public interests identified
lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. This is because the overall public
interest lies in ensuring that the Home Office's ability to protect its commercial
competitiveness is not prejudiced.
I can advise you as part of the Government's transparency policy we are
obliged to publish payments in excess of f25K on the Home Office website.
Details of these can be found at:
http://www. homeoffice.qov.uk/publications/about-us/transparencv/transparencvspend/
lf you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent
internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint
within two months to the address below, quoting reference 25274. lf you ask
for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are
dissatisfied with the response.

Information Access Team

Not that to much of this is clear however what is clear 559 people passed through Larne House in just over a year. In a country the size of Northern Ireland this is a lot of people. Bear in mind also that these are only those apprehended. Neither we nor the UKBA have any idea how many illegals including dangerous criminals are running around our country as I write!

Still think open borders are a good idea?