personal imports of prescription drugs

[Arthur Dent]

Is there any general law against buying an over the counter
medicine or 'dietary supplement' abroad and bringing it back into
the UK for personal use if it's only available on prescription
here?

Nothing of 'recreational' interest like tranquillisers. ;-) I'm
sure there are special rules for those.

Does it matter whether I buy it in the EU or elsewhere? How about
mail order vs personally carrying it back?

thanks

[meow...@care2.com]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:25:07 PM UTC+1, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:55:02 +0100, Arthur Dent <nobody>

> If the substance is scheduled within one of the three classes of controlled
>
> drugs then possession without a prescription can be an offence under the
>
> Misuse of Drugs Act. For other prescription medications, possession without
>
> a prescription is generally not an offence but their supply could be one
>
> under the Medicines Act.

Does this mean its legal to buy prescrition-only drugs by mail from abroad, at least for the purchaser?


NT

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
> news:bgdu78hh2sfhm61ui...@4ax.com...

>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:55:02 +0100, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
> > Does this mean its legal to buy prescrition-only drugs by mail from
> > abroad, at least for the purchaser?
>

> Yes, when imported only for your own use and it is not a controlled drug.

Are you sure about that? As I recall the importation of unlicensed medicines
is an offence under the Medicines Act 1968, and a quick Google search
suggested (without authority cited) that purchasing prescription-only
medicines is also an offence.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Syd Rumpo]

I imported some painkillers for my mother when she was dying. I don't
remember what they were - Paracetamol with some small amount of opioid I
think.

These were what she was used to and what worked for her in the past, but
had been withdrawn in the UK although still used in many other
countries. At this stage the technicalities didn't really matter; she
preferred them and so I bought some from the web.

The first order went fine. The second was intercepted by customs and I
received a letter saying that I was importing controlled substances,
they'd got me bang to rights, they would keep the drugs and I could
either appeal or let it drop. I chose the latter, and anyway, by then
it no longer mattered.

Cheers
--
Syd

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Syd Rumpo" wrote in message news:k5ofca$3ta$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 17/10/2012 15:55, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > Is there any general law against buying an over the counter
> > medicine or 'dietary supplement' abroad and bringing it back into
> > the UK for personal use if it's only available on prescription
> > here?
> >
> > Nothing of 'recreational' interest like tranquillisers. ;-) I'm
> > sure there are special rules for those.
> >
> > Does it matter whether I buy it in the EU or elsewhere? How about
> > mail order vs personally carrying it back?
>

> I imported some painkillers for my mother when she was dying. I don't
> remember what they were - Paracetamol with some small amount of opioid I
> think.
>

> The first order went fine. The second was intercepted by customs and I
> received a letter saying that I was importing controlled substances,
> they'd got me bang to rights, they would keep the drugs and I could either
> appeal or let it drop. I chose the latter, and anyway, by then it no
> longer mattered.
>

If an opiod it might also be a controlled drug, in which case even more
restrictions apply.

[Steve Firth]

"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Syd Rumpo" wrote in message news:k5ofca$3ta$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 17/10/2012 15:55, Arthur Dent wrote:
>>> Is there any general law against buying an over the counter
>>> medicine or 'dietary supplement' abroad and bringing it back into
>>> the UK for personal use if it's only available on prescription
>>> here?
>>>
>>> Nothing of 'recreational' interest like tranquillisers. ;-) I'm
>>> sure there are special rules for those.
>>>
>>> Does it matter whether I buy it in the EU or elsewhere? How about
>>> mail order vs personally carrying it back?
>>
>> I imported some painkillers for my mother when she was dying. I don't
>> remember what they were - Paracetamol with some small amount of opioid I
>> think.
>>
>> The first order went fine. The second was intercepted by customs and I
>> received a letter saying that I was importing controlled substances,
>> they'd got me bang to rights, they would keep the drugs and I could either
>> appeal or let it drop. I chose the latter, and anyway, by then it no
>> longer mattered.
>>
> If an opiod it might also be a controlled drug, in which case even more
> restrictions apply.

Probably codeine or dicodamol. Illegal to possess in Greece IIRC part of
the opioid hysteria on the part of politicians.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-10-18 11:20:03 +0000, Chris R said:

> >
>>
>> "Syd Rumpo" wrote in message news:k5ofca$3ta$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 17/10/2012 15:55, Arthur Dent wrote:
>>> Is there any general law against buying an over the counter
>>> medicine or 'dietary supplement' abroad and bringing it back into
>>> the UK for personal use if it's only available on prescription
>>> here?
>>>
>>> Nothing of 'recreational' interest like tranquillisers. ;-) I'm
>>> sure there are special rules for those.
>>>
>>> Does it matter whether I buy it in the EU or elsewhere? How about
>>> mail order vs personally carrying it back?
>>
>> I imported some painkillers for my mother when she was dying. I don't
>> remember what they were - Paracetamol with some small amount of opioid I
>> think.
>>
>> The first order went fine. The second was intercepted by customs and I
>> received a letter saying that I was importing controlled substances,
>> they'd got me bang to rights, they would keep the drugs and I could either
>> appeal or let it drop. I chose the latter, and anyway, by then it no
>> longer mattered.
>>
> If an opiod it might also be a controlled drug, in which case even more
> restrictions apply.

If it was Distalgesic then it was controlled, but low dose codeine is
available without prescription. If anyone else has the problem of
obtaining an unlicensed controlled drug, then if you get a private
prescription a decent chemist will import it legally for you.


--

Percy Picacity

[Alex Potter]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:05:03 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

> Probably codeine or dicodamol. Illegal to possess in Greece IIRC part of
> the opioid hysteria on the part of politicians.

Does that mean that I couldn't take my prescription Tramadol to Greece?

--
Alex

[Syd Rumpo]

That didn't ring a bell, so I was prompted to find out from my old PC's
email. It was in fact Co-proxamol, which was linked to suicides and
accidental deaths.

Cheers
--
Syd

[Roland Perry]

In message <k5p4dh$m7u$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:10 on Thu, 18 Oct
2012, Alex Potter <spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> remarked:

>> Probably codeine or dicodamol. Illegal to possess in Greece IIRC part of
>> the opioid hysteria on the part of politicians.
>
>Does that mean that I couldn't take my prescription Tramadol to Greece?

There are several places you have to be very careful about with
medicines, especially the Middle East. And not just the ones in a
bottle, but the residue in your bloodstream. When in Rome...
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <k5p620$5tc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:03 on Thu, 18 Oct
2012, Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> remarked:

>It was in fact Co-proxamol, which was linked to suicides and accidental
>deaths.

I was prescribed that for a bad back (bad enough to make it difficult to
get out of bed). It was extremely effective, but I didn't find it
addictive, as some claim. Very easy to overdose though, either
accidentally or on purpose.
--
Roland Perry

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-10-18, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <6ZJnULWJ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...

>> There are several places you have to be very careful about with
>> medicines, especially the Middle East.
>

> Dubai is exceptionally strict (and vigilant).

That's putting it mildly. One guy apparently got sentenced to four
years because he'd eaten a bread roll with poppy seeds on it before
travelling, and three seeds had dropped onto his clothes. Keith Brown
from the UK got sentenced to four years in prison for having a speck
of cannabis smaller than a grain of sugar. It seems unlikely that he
even knew he had it, since it was stuck in the tread of his shoe.
Other people have been held in prison for possession of prescribed
codeine or flu medication.

I would not voluntarily travel to Dubai.

[Periander]

On 19-Oct-2012, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> I would not voluntarily travel to Dubai.

Speaking for myself I wouldn't even voluntarily travel to Yorkshire.

To add a little balance though I am personally aware of a young girl taken
out of the UK to Ethiopia, at the time it was believed that she was being
taken there either to be killed for "honour" reasons or suffer FGM (at the
time she was 8 and was confirmed to be suffering from gonorrhea - and as she
wasn't born with it you can work the rest out for yourselves). Sadly by the
time UK police were alerted the girl and her escort were already en route,
the one chance to reach her before she got to her destination was to have
her intercepted during a stop-over in Dubai. Baring in mind that they are a
very orthodox Muslim bunch of folks hopes were not high.

Nevertheless the Dubai police, got both her and her escort and within hours
had put them both back on a plane to the UK, no faffing around, no "human
rights" it was to them, a very simple case of "we don't like what you're up
to, we won't allow it here in our country, we won't allow you to use our
country to be a party to your plans, you're going back to where you came
from", and everyone lived happily ever after, lived being the operative
word.

When in Rome and all that ...

--

All the best,

Periander

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-10-19, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> wrote:
> On 19-Oct-2012, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> I would not voluntarily travel to Dubai.

...

> When in Rome and all that ...

Well, indeed, that's my point. I do not wish to do as the people in
Dubai do, so I will refrain from going there.

[Robin Bignall]

Neither would I, but Periander appears to be making the point that the
British Bulldog has lost all of its teeth since WW2 and is now a
Yorkshire Terrier, hardly even bothering to yap futilely.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England

[Jon Ribbens]

Well to be honest I wasn't really expecting that the rulers of Dubai
would be roundly chastised by my thunderous absence and repent of
their sinfully-foreign ways.

[Periander]

On 19-Oct-2012, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> > When in Rome and all that ...
>
> Well, indeed, that's my point. I do not wish to do as the people in
> Dubai do, so I will refrain from going there.

That's why I won't go to Yorkshire ;-)

[Periander]

On 19-Oct-2012, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> >Well, indeed, that's my point. I do not wish to do as the people in
> >Dubai do, so I will refrain from going there.
>
> Neither would I, but Periander appears to be making the point that the
> British Bulldog has lost all of its teeth since WW2 and is now a
> Yorkshire Terrier, hardly even bothering to yap futilely.

Nope, nothing so sophisticated tonight, I was simply pointing out that
coming from Lancashire I simply regard Yorkshire since the recent war as one
of our Dukes minor provinces where the denizens are said to keep sheep.
Obviously not my sort of people.

With regards to the Dubai point, I simply added it to provide a little
balance, no "British Bulldog" point at all, the incident moved so fast
political power could not have been brought to bare in time. It was simply
police officers helping out their brother officers in another country and
indeed getting the job done before any politicians could interfere ;-)

[Norman Wells]

Periander wrote:
> On 19-Oct-2012, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, indeed, that's my point. I do not wish to do as the people in
>>> Dubai do, so I will refrain from going there.
>>
>> Neither would I, but Periander appears to be making the point that
>> the British Bulldog has lost all of its teeth since WW2 and is now a
>> Yorkshire Terrier, hardly even bothering to yap futilely.
>
> Nope, nothing so sophisticated tonight, I was simply pointing out that
> coming from Lancashire I simply regard Yorkshire since the recent war
> as one of our Dukes minor provinces where the denizens are said to
> keep sheep. Obviously not my sort of people.

I would remind m'learned friend that the famous lamb dish is, er,
Lancashire Hotpot.

In Yorkshire I believe the denizens generally keep puddings.

[Percy Picacity]

That is gratifying for the police officers, but I suspect we could
think of circumstances in which such an action was not, in global
terms, a good thing.

--

Percy Picacity

[Nick Odell]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:10:02 +0100, "Periander" <u...@britwar.couk>
wrote:

> ...I was simply pointing out that

>coming from Lancashire I simply regard Yorkshire since the recent war as one
>of our Dukes minor provinces where the denizens are said to keep sheep.
>Obviously not my sort of people.
>

Ah yes. 1487. It still feels as if it were only yesterday.

Nick

[Ophelia]

"Nick Odell" <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ef6588l5528d6jcjo...@4ax.com...

Indeed, but at Periander's age ...
--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-10-19, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> wrote:

> With regards to the Dubai point, I simply added it to provide a little
> balance, no "British Bulldog" point at all, the incident moved so fast
> political power could not have been brought to bare in time. It was simply
> police officers helping out their brother officers in another country and
> indeed getting the job done before any politicians could interfere ;-)

There are undeniably advantages in a repressive authoritarian regime,
but they are not in my opinion sufficient to recommend it ;-)

[John Briggs]

In which case, a career in policing probably isn't for you.
--
John Briggs

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-10-22, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnk82ml0.o...@snowy.squish.net>,
> jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk says...
>> That's putting it mildly. <....> Other people have been held in prison

> for possession of prescribed codeine or flu medication.
>

> Dubai, and airlines using its airport, give that warning loud and
> clear to all travellers.

They have signs warning "if you have eaten a bagel or bread roll,
or unknowingly stepped on a microscopic amount of discarded drugs,
you will be imprisoned for 4 years"?

>> I would not voluntarily travel to Dubai.
>

> Dubai is an international hub airport, transited by longhaul
> travellers to many parts of the world.

I guess I'll have to be careful with my travel itineraries then.

[David D S]

Because of this, I have always refused any offer of a
flight that
involves changing at Dubai. That is not because I have an
interest in any illegal drugs, but because I have a chronic
illness that requires regular medication that I must carry
with
me when travelling.

I would sooner even pay a bit more than expose me to the
risks of being held for possession of prescribed medicine
they
do not approve of, or of accidentally stepped on a discarded
cannabis cigarette at some point in the past 3 days and so
have an almost homeopathic amount of it on the heel of my
shoe, or have rashly taken a codeine whilst in the UK a few
days before travelling. Instead, at the moment, I find
equally
good deals that use Istanbul as an internediate airport. In
the past I have used Frankfurt and Helsincki.

--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2012/10/23 9:15:44

[Neil Williams]

"David D S" <inv...@m-invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Because of this, I have always refused any offer of a
> flight that
> involves changing at Dubai. That is not because I have an
> interest in any illegal drugs, but because I have a chronic
> illness that requires regular medication that I must carry
> with
> me when travelling.

Many Muslim countries will not accept codeine based painkillers, not just
Dubai. I am pretty sure Malaysia doesn't either, which for you is perhaps
a shame as Malaysia Airlines are excellent, with the best economy class I
have experienced.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

[Adam Funk]

What do governments expect to accomplish with that kind of stupidity,
apart from scaring tourists away?

[Periander]

On 2-Nov-2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> What do governments expect to accomplish with that kind of stupidity,
> apart from scaring tourists away?

Perhaps they believe that their way of life is more important to them than
pandering to tourists? To mind mind notwithstanding the fact that I wouldnt
live in Dubai for all the tea in China it strikes me as a very legitimate
postion for a government to take.

[tim.....]

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n9l088lvbm97djbde...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:40:19 +0100, "Chris R"
> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
>>> news:bgdu78hh2sfhm61ui...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:55:02 +0100, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does this mean its legal to buy prescrition-only drugs by mail from
>>>> abroad, at least for the purchaser?
>>>
>>> Yes, when imported only for your own use and it is not a controlled
>>> drug.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? As I recall the importation of unlicensed
>> medicines
>> is an offence under the Medicines Act 1968, and a quick Google search
>> suggested (without authority cited) that purchasing prescription-only
>> medicines is also an offence.
>
> There are restrictions on importation on Section 7(3) but the importation
> of
> medicinal products by a person for administration to himself in exempted
> in
> Section 13(1).

Surely mail order does not count as "importation by a person, for
administration to himself". The importation has been done by the courier
company who aren't administering the drug to themselves.

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <afppbf...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:25:02 on Mon, 5 Nov
2012, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>Surely mail order does not count as "importation by a person, for
>administration to himself". The importation has been done by the
>courier company who aren't administering the drug to themselves.

A curious view of the situation, and wrong.
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

I think the courier company would be keen to point out that they were
merely acting as an agent. The question of 'whose agent?' is a more
difficult one.


--

Percy Picacity

[tim.....]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:unPC7SVF...@perry.co.uk...

It's not wrong when the package contains cigarettes, so why is it wrong when
the package contains other forms of legal-to-hold drugs

tim

[tim.....]

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jidf98lhjr24h8jn6...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:25:02 +0000, "tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Surely mail order does not count as "importation by a person, for
>> administration to himself". The importation has been done by the courier
>> company who aren't administering the drug to themselves.
>

> http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000014&propertyType=document#P6_70

Is there a particular point that I should have read, because I didn't see
anything obvious.

As I said to Roland, HMRC don't seem to allow having stuff mail-ordered to
yourself as counting as "self importing" when the item in the package is
cigarettes or alcohol (whilst they do allow small quantities they are
significantly less than the "anything that you can show is for you personal
use" which applies if you carry it yourself), so why are prescription drugs
different?

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <afpvio...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:10:02 on Mon, 5 Nov

2012, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Surely mail order does not count as "importation by a person, for
>>>administration to himself". The importation has been done by the
>>>courier company who aren't administering the drug to themselves.
>>
>> A curious view of the situation, and wrong.
>
>It's not wrong when the package contains cigarettes,

Why do you think that.

> so why is it wrong when the package contains other forms of
>legal-to-hold drugs

Read the Customs information linked to earlier.
--
Roland Perry

[tim.....]

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message

news:reif98t8nrd2hoqss...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:10:02 +0000, "tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:unPC7SVF...@perry.co.uk...
>>> In message <afppbf...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:25:02 on Mon, 5 Nov
>>> 2012, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Surely mail order does not count as "importation by a person, for
>>>> administration to himself". The importation has been done by the
>>>> courier
>>>> company who aren't administering the drug to themselves.
>>>
>>> A curious view of the situation, and wrong.
>>
>> It's not wrong when the package contains cigarettes
>

> Cite?

Well I was just commenting upon what they appear to believe, based upon
their reported behaviour,.

they could be legally wrong, of course, and the reports could be inaccurate.

tim

[tim.....]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:mzDA+Fd0...@perry.co.uk...

which under the heading "Can I receive alcohol and tobacco from the EU"
says:

"If you receive goods that are for your own personal use, because ... you
have posted them to yourself ... there will be a liability to excise duty"

which is not the case if you self import by hand.

So as the rules for this type of importation is not the same as "self
importation" I conclude that this method of importation is not "self
importation" for this product type

So that brings me back to the question of why is there this certainty that
it is self importations for other product types.

tim






> --
> Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

A possible explanation is that HMRC duty exemption for goods carried in
is a specific exemption rather than an importer's right. But I don't
know if this is true.

--

Percy Picacity

[Ian Jackson]

In article <afoe88...@mid.individual.net>,

Periander <4rub...@britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2-Nov-2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>What do governments expect to accomplish with that kind of stupidity,
>>apart from scaring tourists away?
>
>Perhaps they believe that their way of life is more important to them than
>pandering to tourists?

Their "way of life" is not going to be even trivially threatened by a
few milligrams of comestible stuck to the bottom of a visitor's shoe.

> To mind mind notwithstanding the fact that I wouldnt live in Dubai
>for all the tea in China it strikes me as a very legitimate postion
>for a government to take.

Well it is of course for any country to decide its own laws and so
forth, but the laws we're discussing now are completely ridiculous and
we are all entitled to point this out.

Also, as well as being ridiculous they are (obviously) selectively
enforced. Perhaps you will say that selectively enforcing laws is
also a legitimate thing for a foreign government to do; after all,
they are entitled to do things differently there.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Adam Funk]

Some people used to say the apartheid way of life and similar
practices in (ahem) other countries were more important than pandering
to uppity ******s. I don't think that kind of attitude towards human
rights is a legitimate position for any government to take.

[Martin Bonner]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:26:25 PM UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Perhaps you will say that selectively enforcing laws is
> also a legitimate thing for a foreign government to do; after all,
> they are entitled to do things differently there.

Did you mis-spell "the same" when you typed "differently" there?

There are plenty of examples of UK laws being applied selectively.

[Neil Williams]

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Also, as well as being ridiculous they are (obviously) selectively
> enforced. Perhaps you will say that selectively enforcing laws is
> also a legitimate thing for a foreign government to do; after all,
> they are entitled to do things differently there.

Speed limits are an example of something that is selectively enforced in
the UK.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<502288505374423542.352260we...@news.individual.
net>, at 14:40:01 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Neil Williams
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>Speed limits are an example of something that is selectively enforced in
>the UK.

As is cyclists ignoring red traffic lights.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <baf30052-05de-46ef...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes. I didn't however want to accuse Periander of being in favour of
the selective application of UK laws.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-12, Janet wrote:

> In article <Kqh*C2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...

>>
>> In article <afoe88...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Periander <4rub...@britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 2-Nov-2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >>What do governments expect to accomplish with that kind of stupidity,
>> >>apart from scaring tourists away?
>> >
>> >Perhaps they believe that their way of life is more important to them than
>> >pandering to tourists?
>>
>> Their "way of life" is not going to be even trivially threatened by a
>> few milligrams of comestible stuck to the bottom of a visitor's shoe.
>

> You may underestimate the ways in which livestock and crop disease can
> be spread from country to country. Countries such as Australia and New
> Zealand, rightly protect their farm industries by enforcing strict
> biosecurity on the foot wear of travellers arriving from certain
> countries.

Removing accidental contaminants is rather different from locking
people up for having them!

[Judith]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:05:02 +0000, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Countries such as Australia and New
>Zealand, rightly protect their farm industries by enforcing strict
>biosecurity on the foot wear of travellers arriving from certain
>countries.
>

Are you sure?

It seems odd to me to test the shoes of one passenger but not test the shoes of
the passenger behind (perhaps from a different flight) who has walked in the
footprints of the first?

Are the floors cleaned between flights?

After all, if the first passenger's shoes could have picked up something on the
soles, so could the second's.


(I am reminded of the TV Australian customs shows where customs open up
packages of insects in the customs area with no thoughts for those dropped out
on to the floor whatsoever. The ones that don't get away are incinerated. I
suspect much is for show; and if they really do as you say, then that also)

[Roland Perry]

In message <rp78n9...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 22:05:02 on Mon, 12
Nov 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>>> Their "way of life" is not going to be even trivially threatened by a
>>> few milligrams of comestible stuck to the bottom of a visitor's shoe.
>>
>> You may underestimate the ways in which livestock and crop disease can
>> be spread from country to country. Countries such as Australia and New
>> Zealand, rightly protect their farm industries by enforcing strict
>> biosecurity on the foot wear of travellers arriving from certain
>> countries.
>
>Removing accidental contaminants is rather different from locking
>people up for having them!

I think there's some confusion here. The issue for the country concerned
(and I have been there - landside as well as in transit) is possession
of certain substances, have a very low measurement threshold, and aren't
interested in whether it's 'accidental' possession or not.
--
Roland Perry

[Jo Lonergan]

Don't a large proportion (well, anything between 10% and 99%, according to
various press reports) of UK and US banknotes have traces of cocaine on them? A
bit worrying, if you're travelling through with any in your wallet.

--
Jo

[the Omrud]

It's sort of true, but only because cocaine is a very fine powder and
which is easily spread by automatic counting machines. The quantities
on individual notes are so tiny as to be irrelevant:

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

--
David

[Ian Jackson]

In article <Hxros.213483$g62.1...@fx06.am4>,

the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's sort of true, but only because cocaine is a very fine powder and
>which is easily spread by automatic counting machines. The quantities
>on individual notes are so tiny as to be irrelevant:
>
>http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

Nevertheless the law in Dubai does not recognise any exception for
amounts "so tiny as to be irrelevant". So far the problem has mostly
been confined to cannabis because their extremely sensitive automatic
detectors concentrate on that, but there is no reason why the same
problem shouldn't arise with cocaine traces on banknotes. Once again,
you'll only suffer problems if the border staff don't like the look of
you.

[Sara]

In article <MPG.2b0c6f427...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:

> In article <dno3a89c0k5uhtskk...@4ax.com>, jmsmith2011
> @hotmail.co.uk says...

> >
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:05:02 +0000, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Countries such as Australia and New
> > >Zealand, rightly protect their farm industries by enforcing strict
> > >biosecurity on the foot wear of travellers arriving from certain
> > >countries.
> > >
> > Are you sure?
>

> Yes. From personal experience of shoe and packed footwear disinfection
> entering both countries.
>
> NZ customs questionnaire filled in by arrivals;
>
> "Which countries have you visited in the last 30 days"
>
> "are you bringing into NZ
>
> "Other biosecurity risk items, including:
> ? Equipment used with animals, plants or water, including for
> gardening, beekeeping, fishing, water sport or diving activities? ?
> Items that have been used outdoors, such as boots, golf or sports
> shoes, tents, used camping, hiking or sports equipment? In the past 30
> days (while outside New Zealand) have you visited a forest,
> had contact with animals (except domestic cats and dogs) or visited
> properties that farm or process animals or plants?"
>
> Oz is equally strict, IME.
>
Now you mention it, that rings a bell regarding Aus. when I've been
there.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.2b0c6f427...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
14:55:09 on Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Janet <H...@invalid.net> remarked:

>Items that have been used outdoors, such as boots, golf or sports
>shoes, tents, used camping, hiking or sports equipment?

I think they have an over-romantic view of "the great outdoors". Not
living in a naturist colony I tend to wear clothes, and ordinary shoes
(not just the ones listed), when going outdoors. Indeed, I'd struggle to
name any clothing I might have in my luggage that hadn't previously been
worn outdoors.

And yes that includes a bathrobe I wore once when putting out the
rubbish in a hurry on bin day, having forgotten to do it the night
before.
--
Roland Perry

[Sara]

In article <e+MeNCD9...@perry.co.uk>,

I very vaguely remember being warned in advance that shoes were being
checked and was advised to wash the soles before travelling. This is
going back about 10 years - was one of the F&M things going on then?
Can't remember.

I also don't remember much about what happened at Melbourne airport. It
had been a long flight, I was very tired and I do remember I'd filled in
most of the arrivals card wrong and they couldn't have been nicer about
it.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<saramerriman-B454...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
17:15:02 on Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
remarked:

>I very vaguely remember being warned in advance that shoes were being
>checked and was advised to wash the soles before travelling. This is
>going back about 10 years - was one of the F&M things going on then?
>Can't remember.

The same probably applies to arriving in the USA, where the form also
asks if you've "been on a farm" recently. Oblivious of whether or not
you might have change your footwear/clothing in the mean time.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.2b0b58816...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
>In article <Kqh*C2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...

>>In article <afoe88...@mid.individual.net>,
>>Periander <4rub...@britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 2-Nov-2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>What do governments expect to accomplish with that kind of stupidity,
>>>>apart from scaring tourists away?
>>>
>>>Perhaps they believe that their way of life is more important to them than
>>>pandering to tourists?
>>
>>Their "way of life" is not going to be even trivially threatened by a
>>few milligrams of comestible stuck to the bottom of a visitor's shoe.
>

> You may underestimate the ways in which livestock and crop disease can
>be spread from country to country.

This is not relevant.

The phrase "that kind of stupidity" in Adam's message above refers to
the outrageous treatement of travellers to Dubai who have unwittingly
"carried" trace quantities of forbidden drugs as contamination on
their shoes or clothing.

The purpose of these Dubai laws is not biosecurity, it's upholding the
moral fibre or something - Periander's "way of life". My point is
that this trace contamination with illegal drugs does not threaten
Dubai's way of life.

Biosecurity problems are handled differently. You won't be thrown in
jail for 4 years by New Zealand because you unwittingly "imported" a
tiny forbidden seed stuck to the sole of your shoe.

[Judith]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:55:09 +0000, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Oz is equally strict, IME.
>

> Janet


And how do they cope with the problems I raised of squeaky clean people
stepping in the footprints of those who may be a problem in the customs hall;
all those people walking on the dirty carpet in the plane etc etc?

As I said : much for show.

[Adam Funk]

I don't think any police force decides not to enforce that --- it's
part of the bigger problem that police forces can't/won't afford to
put officers out on the streets enforcing traffic law & safety
generally.

And it's not uncommon to see things in local papers about the police
going after various kinds of scofflaw cyclists --- PCSOs can often do
it (cheaply) and it has a lot of populist appeal to the rabble who
think they pay "road tax". You never (?) see a crackdown on dangerous
overtaking.

(Just to be clear, I have no problem with enforcing traffic law
against bad cyclists, as long as the police are *also* out slapping
points on the licences of drivers who overtake cyclists too close or
otherwise act dangerously. Some bad cycling, especially pavement
cycling, results from the feeling of being bullied by drivers.)

[Roland Perry]

In message <uplpn9x...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 12:50:01 on Mon, 19
Nov 2012, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>>>Speed limits are an example of something that is selectively enforced in
>>>the UK.
>>
>> As is cyclists ignoring red traffic lights.
>
>I don't think any police force decides not to enforce that --- it's
>part of the bigger problem that police forces can't/won't afford to
>put officers out on the streets enforcing traffic law & safety
>generally.

There's the occasional purge, but generally the police ignore low-level
traffic infringements such as systemic traffic light abuse (unless it's
motorists at lights with a camera).
--
Roland Perry

[Erin]

> Does it matter whether I buy it in the EU or elsewhere? How about
> mail order vs personally carrying it back?
>

Mail order via a reputable EU online pharmacy (at the moment, Brexit will destroy this for everyone in the UK) is fine. The export and import is done under license from the sending pharmacy.


As for bringing it in yourself, well that's pot luck, you can try reading through the reams and reams of legislation and find a safe route, but what is OTC in one country can easily be a controlled substance in another.

[Nick Odell]

Just to leap aboard this resurrected 2012 thread: what about drugs that
are licensed for one thing and used for another?

I have pain from arthritis: as Booker T Jones might have sung, should
his joints have given him as much trouble as mine "If it wasn't for
NSAIDs, I wouldn't have no knees at all." But an over-the-counter remedy
for period pain is very effective. Trouble is, in the UK the drug is
only prescription free for the treatment of period pain: if you want it
for anything else you have to get a prescription. In the US and Canada,
it is freely available without prescription for any purpose.

So:
1) Could I get anything more than just a ticking off from my doctor
because I'm a man with bad knees using a medication licensed for women
with menstrual pain?

2)When I bring it back with me from the US or order it in the post, have
the authorities any grounds for confiscating something that's openly on
sale in the UK, especially if -

3)As a near-70-year-old man I were to self-identify as female for the
purposes of taking this medication?

Nick
(Yes, I could go to the doctors and get a prescription but they are busy
enough already with ill people and the repeat prescription routine is a
bit of a pain in the -erme- knees(?))

[Harry Bloomfield]

Nick Odell used his keyboard to write :

> (Yes, I could go to the doctors and get a prescription but they are busy
> enough already with ill people and the repeat prescription routine is a bit
> of a pain in the -erme- knees(?))

You obviously online, why not ask the surgery to give you online access
so you can login into their system (Systmonline?). You can then just
tick a box for repeats and collect from the pharmacie or have the
pharmacie deliver to you? You can even file requests for any meds you
might need via the same system, so they can just approve and you
collect.

[Nick Odell]

I haven't seen a doctor in years and haven't been given a prescription
for even longer so tell me if my assumptions are out-of-date or just
plain wrong.

I'm not always in the same place and I don't follow an ordered routine
so to be registered to a pharmacy that is convenient for me one day may
not be convenient for me the next. Receiving deliveries requires me to
be in the right place at the right time, doesn't it? A paper
prescription that I could collect at a convenient time and took to a
pharmacy of my choice used to be ideal but I understand they don't do
that any more. I've no intention of ordering my life around the customs
and practices of the NHS unless I really have to. And don't get me
started on what I understand about repeat prescriptions...

I wouldn't presume to self-diagnose cancer or buy chemotherapy drugs on
the black market (to set an extreme) but buying certain NSAIDs from
overseas is far, far, cheaper than buying the same thing, but for women,
over the counter at Boots and the convenience of doing it my way far
exceeds the loss of the few quid a year it costs.

So that's why I do it: the question, I suppose is, could the law, should
the law restrict my choice of where to obtain what is, for some
conditions, an ordinary, over-the-counter medicine?

Nick

[lordgnome]

On 26/06/2019 16:08, Nick Odell wrote:
I can't answer the legal minefield, but venture the opinion that people
should be allowed to purchase and imbibe anything that suits them. Apart
from the issue of convenience, think of all the money that the police
would save by not having the onerous task of knocking in doors just to
remove a few cannabis plants!

[Harry Bloomfield]

Nick Odell was thinking very hard :

> A paper prescription that I could collect at a convenient time and took to a
> pharmacy of my choice used to be ideal but I understand they don't do that
> any more. I've no intention of ordering my life around the customs and
> practices of the NHS unless I really have to. And don't get me started on
> what I understand about repeat prescriptions...

I don't know about paper prescriptions, I have never had one, I have
only recently needed meds since when the whole process seems to be
electronic.

I have a standard list of meds on repeat, which I just tick a box for -
if I need anything else i just go online, login and type a request.
That then gets reviewed and accepted or referred for a phone call or
appointment. I tell them which pharmacy I want the prescription
supplied by.

All fairly slick.

[Harry Bloomfield]

lordgnome explained :

> Apart
> from the issue of convenience, think of all the money that the police
> would save by not having the onerous task of knocking in doors just to
> remove a few cannabis plants!

Don't you think that might lead to a massive increase in people
becoming addicted and even more drug related deaths?

[davi...@gmail.com]

A large proportion of the current deaths are because of the unexpected ingredients and somewhat random dosage if you buy your drugs on the black market (leaving aside all the injuries and death derived from the associated criminality of the drugs trade).

[Roger Hayter]

I do not know to which drug you allude. But note that period pain is
(generally) periodic rather than constant, and does not occur in old
people. Some NSAIDs are rarely used long-term or in old people because
they are all dangerous, and some more dangerous than others. So there
may be a thoroughly logical reason for making this drug available only
to young women taking it periodically, unless a doctor feels that for a
particular person the benefits outweigh the risks. So it iisn't quite
as arbitrary as you suggest.


--

Roger Hayter

[Nick Odell]

I completely take your point from a medical perspective. I'm interested
in the legal perspective.

The drug is licensed in the UK; for one use, you can buy it over the
counter; for any other use you officially need a prescription.

Are customs entitled to detain this drug at an airport or in the post?
Asking the addressee, "do you suffer from period pain?" before taking a
decision seems like taking a step too far.

Nick

[tim...]

"Nick Odell" <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote in message
news:qf01pe$l7k$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 26/06/2019 15:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>> Nick Odell used his keyboard to write :
>>> (Yes, I could go to the doctors and get a prescription but they are busy
>>> enough already with ill people and the repeat prescription routine is a
>>> bit of a pain in the -erme- knees(?))
>>
>> You obviously online, why not ask the surgery to give you online access
>> so you can login into their system (Systmonline?). You can then just tick
>> a box for repeats and collect from the pharmacie or have the pharmacie
>> deliver to you? You can even file requests for any meds you might need
>> via the same system, so they can just approve and you collect.
>
> I haven't seen a doctor in years and haven't been given a prescription for
> even longer so tell me if my assumptions are out-of-date or just plain
> wrong.

It seems to me rather daft of you to continue to self medicate with a drug
that doesn't work,

because you are too set in your ways to go and see the doctor to get the
drug that does work, as a repeat prescription. This is what doctors are
for. You wont be wasting their time seeing them for this.

FTAOD I do know the names of the drugs that you are referring to and you
shouldn't be taking them on an ongoing basis (even the one available in the
supermarket) without the doctor reassessing you at regular periods anyway.

> I'm not always in the same place and I don't follow an ordered routine so
> to be registered to a pharmacy that is convenient for me one day may not
> be convenient for me the next.

No problem. You don't need to nominate a pharmacy as you seem to think.

But over what sort of period and area do you move. You haven't suggest that
you can't get to see the same doctor from one day to the next. You only
need to be able to pick up your pills one day each month. Even if you do
nominate a pharmacy to collect them for you, after the have requested the
repeat script they will make the drugs available for you at you convenience.

> Receiving deliveries requires me to be in the right place at the right
> time, doesn't it?

As you seem to be suggetsing it will be possible for you to receive packages
from rEU surely you can receive one from a "postal" based pharmacy such as:

https://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/

(Is there any other?)

I have yet to try them but I understand that they just "post" the meds to
you and if they don't fit through your letter box they will go back to the
Sorting Office for you to collect at your convenience.

But they also make the extra effort to be sure that packages will fit
through "averaged" sized letter boxes.

provided your doctor is registered with the electronic prescription service
(I'm sure that most are now) you can select pharmacy2u as your preferred
pharmacy

> A paper prescription that I could collect at a convenient time and took to
> a pharmacy of my choice used to be ideal but I understand they don't do
> that any more.

Nope, still available

It's still what I do

> I've no intention of ordering my life around the customs and practices of
> the NHS unless I really have to. And don't get me started on what I
> understand about repeat prescriptions...
>
> I wouldn't presume to self-diagnose cancer or buy chemotherapy drugs on
> the black market (to set an extreme) but buying certain NSAIDs from
> overseas is far, far, cheaper than buying the same thing, but for women,
> over the counter at Boots and the convenience of doing it my way far
> exceeds the loss of the few quid a year it costs.

You have indicated that you are entitled to free scrips, so what UK cost is
there?

> So that's why I do it: the question, I suppose is, could the law, should
> the law restrict my choice of where to obtain what is, for some
> conditions, an ordinary, over-the-counter medicine?

the rules are there because, used irresponsibly, these drugs *can* kill you

tim

[Harry Bloomfield]

tim... used his keyboard to write :

> You only need to be able to pick up your pills one day each month.

That seems to vary, my meds are supplied in two month batches, my
partner receives her meds, from the same doctor, one month at a time.

[Nick Odell]

On 26/06/2019 17:46, tim... wrote:
<enormous snippage>

> It seems to me rather daft of you to continue to self medicate with a
> drug that doesn't work,

Just to say I genuinely appreciate your concerns. I've deliberately
avoided discussing the medical side here because this is a legal group
and I'm interested in the legal question so I'm at a bit of a loss to
understand why you think the drugs don't work (cue The Verve, here...)

I hate taking any medication so, FWIW, the regime I've developed for
myself - and which continues to evolve - allows me days, sometimes a
week or more, without any tablets of any sort and I only take the period
pain ones when I know from experience that other supermarket-available
preparations aren't going to cut it. I hope that reassures you a little.

Nick

[Nick Odell]

Ah, well, despite being British by birth and a legal resident, domiciled
in the UK, the NHS seems to need me to be here all the year round to
treat me all the year round. I spend up to five months in the year
elsewhere and just find it easier to do things my own way.

Nick

[Roland Perry]

In message <qf07k3$p8k$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:46:00 on Wed, 26 Jun
2019, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>You haven't suggest that you can't get to see the same doctor from one
>day to the next. You only need to be able to pick up your pills one
>day each month. Even if you do nominate a pharmacy to collect them for
>you, after the have requested the repeat script they will make the
>drugs available for you at you convenience.

I'd be wary about making sweeping statements regarding the workflow for
prescriptions, given that the electronic-prescription scheme is not yet
fully rolled out.

It may be the case that some GP surgeries insist on the patient
nominating a pharmacy to receive the electronic prescriptions, while
others will still be issuing green slips of paper (either to a nominated
pharmacy, or for you to collect at the surgery, for fulfilment wherever
you like that day).

My own limited experience and hearsay about the various schemes suggests
that if the pharmacy is out of stock[1] the electronic system can take
days to repudiate and re-issue a prescription. A paper one you just walk
next door.

[1] And I have several anecdata of wholesalers being out of stock too,
so don't believe promises that "we can order it in for tomorrow".
--
Roland Perry

[Wm]

I'm not there yet but might need medicine for my joints at some point.

--
Wm

[Wm]

On 26/06/2019 16:08, Nick Odell wrote:

I'm confused about the point you are trying to get across, Nick.

If you're moving about and need some medicine while you're moving about
I think the best thing is to go to your GP and say what you've just said
to us.

S/he'll give you a prescription for a few months and you'll be on your way.

Or have I missed something?

--
Wm

[Nick Odell]

Anecdotal evidence (and yes, I know that the plural of anecdote is
anecdotes, not evidence) is that some GP practices will provide a
prescription for up to two months supply of a medicine but most will
only prescribe for one month, citing prescribing restrictions placed on
them by the NHS.

Nick

[Roland Perry]

In message <qfdibt$44u$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:11:07 on Mon, 1 Jul 2019,
Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:

>Anecdotal evidence (and yes, I know that the plural of anecdote is
>anecdotes, not evidence) is that some GP practices will provide a
>prescription for up to two months supply of a medicine but most will
>only prescribe for one month, citing prescribing restrictions placed on
>them by the NHS.

That's true. I think it came via the CCGs about five years ago. Some GPs
might be running a rearguard action, or some people's anecdata might be
getting long in the tooth.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

The NHS has always been a residence-based system. A person leaving the
UK with the intention of being away for more than 3 months[1] ceases to
be the NHS's responsibility. And it is hard to see how it could work
without some such provision: fulfilling a duty of care to anyone who
lives in the UK /and/ anyone who has lived here but chooses to live
11,000 km away would seem to require an international health service.

Can be (but not always is) different under health /insurance/ systems
(compulsory or otherwise) but I won't blaspheme.


*can be 6 for pensioners in some circs.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Roger Hayter]

If you go abroad for more than a certain time (possibly more than one
month) the NHS will not in theory pay for or provide your medication.
You could obtain a private prescription for as long as a doctor is
willing to predict the continuing appropriateness of your prescription,
but in principle you are supposed to be using a local health service
abroad.



--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <1oa20ht.15gsp5m1id05moN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 21:20:31 on
Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> >Anecdotal evidence (and yes, I know that the plural of anecdote is
>> >anecdotes, not evidence) is that some GP practices will provide a
>> >prescription for up to two months supply of a medicine but most will
>> >only prescribe for one month, citing prescribing restrictions placed on
>> >them by the NHS.
>>
>> That's true. I think it came via the CCGs about five years ago. Some GPs
>> might be running a rearguard action, or some people's anecdata might be
>> getting long in the tooth.
>
>If you go abroad for more than a certain time (possibly more than one
>month) the NHS will not in theory pay for or provide your medication.
>You could obtain a private prescription for as long as a doctor is
>willing to predict the continuing appropriateness of your prescription,
>but in principle you are supposed to be using a local health service
>abroad.

I wasn't addressing the ex-pat issue. Merely how long of a prescription
GPs will issue to an ordinary resident for a chronic condition. I used
to be on two-monthly, but soon after a change of GP they refused to do
more than monthly.

One of the GPs joked, in rather bad taste I thought, that at least
having to visit them once a month to pick up the scripts, gave a patient
a minimum dose of exercise.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <2156310b-3a8f-4b20...@outlook.com>, at
21:19:52 on Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Robin <r...@outlook.com> remarked:

>The NHS has always been a residence-based system. A person leaving the
>UK with the intention of being away for more than 3 months[1] ceases to
>be the NHS's responsibility. And it is hard to see how it could work
>without some such provision: fulfilling a duty of care to anyone who
>lives in the UK /and/ anyone who has lived here but chooses to live
>11,000 km away would seem to require an international health service.

Agreed that they can't provide care at arms length, but how long
after someone returns to the UK do they formally become the NHS's
responsibility again?

Knowing someone who emigrated here, and was given a health check (at the
arrival airport) and a stern instruction to register with a GP asap
[this was all routine, not because of any apparent health issues] about
minus half an hour.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

They are likely to be even stricter about it at the moment to prevent
hoarding of drugs at home by end users in the run up to Brexit.

You can get spectacular shortages with fuel for example if people who
normally only put £10 worth in a week panic and fill up their tank to
the brim all at the same time. Even courgettes have have had media
induced panic buying supermarket shortages and price spikes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roger Hayter]

I should think it is pretty instant if you have both come back to live
here and have a right of residence here. Any delay is likely to be
related to proving residence.


--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <1oa36g9.1027vv16m9orqN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 13:20:36 on
Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> >The NHS has always been a residence-based system. A person leaving the
>> >UK with the intention of being away for more than 3 months[1] ceases to
>> >be the NHS's responsibility. And it is hard to see how it could work
>> >without some such provision: fulfilling a duty of care to anyone who
>> >lives in the UK /and/ anyone who has lived here but chooses to live
>> >11,000 km away would seem to require an international health service.
>>
>> Agreed that they can't provide care at arms length, but how long
>> after someone returns to the UK do they formally become the NHS's
>> responsibility again?
>>
>> Knowing someone who emigrated here, and was given a health check (at the
>> arrival airport) and a stern instruction to register with a GP asap
>> [this was all routine, not because of any apparent health issues] about
>> minus half an hour.
>
>I should think it is pretty instant if you have both come back to live
>here and have a right of residence here. Any delay is likely to be
>related to proving residence.

Let's take "right to residence" out of the equation, and assume there's
no doubt about that.

But what is "residence"? Some schools, for the purposes of admissions
policy, would want to see at least a six month (sometimes 12 month)
rental agreement signed. Rather than just couch-surfing with some
friends, which is the best many could do the first month or two.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <NMftq0qp...@perry.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

> Some schools, for the purposes of admissions
> policy, would want to see at least a six month (sometimes 12 month)
> rental agreement signed.

Given that a parent is legally required to educate a child, on what basis
does a school think it has this right to exclude people who are not
"tenants"

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2019070...@paulcummins.gstgroup.co.uk>, at
13:54:00 on Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Paul Cummins
<agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> remarked:

>> Some schools, for the purposes of admissions policy, would want to
>>see at least a six month (sometimes 12 month) rental agreement signed.
>
>Given that a parent is legally required to educate a child, on what basis
>does a school think it has this right to exclude people who are not
>"tenants"

Because they are over-subscribed, and so some rule has to apply to work
out which "lesser-entitled" prospective pupils have to find their
education elsewhere.

The keywords to look for are "catchment area", and "resident in..."
which are usually near, but never at, the top of the pecking order.

The top is, I believe, statutorily reserved for "children in care".

--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 14:17:49 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

To give an example for a popular high school near me, the criteria
are, in order:

1. Children accommodated by a Local Authority under the terms of the
Children Act 1989.

2. Children living in the catchment area *and* currently attending
a designated feeder school.

3. Children living elsewhere who are currently attending a
designated feeder school.

4. Children with siblings already at the school.

5. Children currently living in the catchment area but not attending
a designated feeder school.

6. Children with strong medical, social or compassionate grounds
for admission.

7. Children of staff employed by the school.

8. Everyone else.

It does slightly surprise me that residence alone is only 5th on the
list, and is trumped by both having siblings already at the school and
attending a feeder school.

When it comes to establishing residency, any or all of the following
are considered valid proof provided it can be supported with
documentary evidence:

a) the address at which Child Benefit for that child is paid to the
relevant parent is in the area,

b) the relevant parent is UK Service Personnel who is, or will be,
posted to the area,

c) a residential tenancy agreement exists (or will exist) in the
name of the relevant parent within the area,

d) the relevant parent is, or will be, owner-occupier of residential
property in the area, or

e) other documentary proof, to the satisfaction of the governors,
that the child lives, or will be living, in the area.

Unlike the admissions criteria, these are all either/or, not
hierarchical. But they're listed in the order of how easy it is to
prove them.

Mark