As a UK citizen and US permanent resident, who pays (lots and lots of) US taxes, I object to this assertion. Having experienced both pre- and post-9/11 lines, both before and after becoming a US resident, both in the US and the UK, I can guarantee you that the much-maligned US really is That Bad. Especially JFK and LAX. :)

Just goes to show that we all extrapolate from our own experience, which is generally somewhat limited and rarely statistically valid. :p

Surely there's an altogether more satisfactory and accurate way of establishing whether someone is a British Citizen or not, without having to check whether the photograph in the passport matches the bearer of said passport, etc?

All the Immigration Officer has to do is ask the individual to recount the latest goings on in either Coronation Street or Eastenders? A non-British citizen wouldn't have a clue what they're about. :)

One of my colleagues told me a story about a relative from Liverpool who lost her passport and upon re-entry to the UK, was asked by the IO to say something in a Liverpudlian accent. She did and was immediately let in!

I am now reminded of a certain Geordie accent being employed to regain entry at LGW on a 'do' once... ;) :D

Not sure I agree here and I am certainly no advocate of 'instant custom'. Look at other reservations to 12(4) -- they are few and far between and largely technical in nature. The UK is outside the status quo on this one. Furthermore, how would the practical problem of non-admittance of a national into their own country handled? Surely if there would be eg. law enforcement questions that would otherwise prohibit the entry of a passport holder (or more likely non-national), that would be more within the realm of police services than an IO, ie. yes welcome home, step past the booth and oh by the way, my collague Bobby is waiting for you downstairs at baggage reclaim.

But, bah, this is argumentation for argument's sake.

PS: I agree, don't be arsey to an IO!

Yikes - nor would I! If that becomes the entry test I've had it!

Sorry, I was probably being unclear: I've been referring to the very specific public international law notion of Customary International Law, which has specific and different effects from international law that is simply very common and widely agreed to.

How would the UK handle non-admittance of a British national to the metropolitan terrritory? Before 1997, easy (and probably quite common): Refuse them leave to enter and put them on the next flight back to Hong Kong. And that's the situation that the Article 12(4) ICCPR reservation and the non-ratification of the Fourth Protocol were probably intended to meet.I couldn't tell you from one week to the next whether either of those programmes was still running.

For that matter, I couldn't tell you what time the TV news is on any more. It used to be that the Nine O'Clock News was on BBC1 at 9 pm, and the News at Ten was on ITV at 10 pm. But they've gone and changed all that, haven't they?

24/09/06 - Time to check in at machine, print pass, drop off bag and go through security = 65 minutes.
Tonite, 02/10/06 - Time to do all of the above = 5 minutes.

Difference between Sunday and Monday=less staff? A week to bed-in the new bag dimensions? Unknown threat last Sunday? Who knows?

I agree that this is probably the purpose of the UK reservation to 12(4), and indeed the Fourth Protocol, although I was surmising the question in the context of a present-day Ever So Most Certainly Modern British Citizen being refused re-entry (eg. an excessively keen football supporter returning from an overseas match).

I continue to argue, however, that on the basis of the limited reservations to 12(4) overall, the daily practice of citizens returning to their countries, the 30 year history of the ICCPR's entry into force, the HK example as a historical circumstance, and the general consistency of the practice overall, that 12(4) demonstrates the sufficient level of 'general practice' and 'acceptance as law' required to form a source of law as defined by Article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. But then I would say that wouldn't I, as I tend to argue generally in my research that treaties may be invoked as evidence of customary law, particularly eg. ICCPR/ICSCR, as I believe there is a normative hierarchy in customary public international law and those treaties would have considerable juridical weight.

Apologies for the bla bla to the board but I thought it was a nice convo! In compensation has anyone else noticed Dermot Murnaghan is on the BBC morning noon and night these days? That bit they just did on breakfast with Kevin Spacey was very funny.

Right, miles and points. Miles and points.