This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is still on here as an Executive Agency. The UK Border Force directorate used to be part of the UK Border Agency (which IS an executive agency) but has now been moved to located within the Home Office. The UK Border Agency is still in existence in charge of other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.74.150 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new logo is: https://www.online-jobs.co.uk/ukba/graphics/Border_Force_logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monabob (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is not-neutral ("undermining"), confusing for anyone - like me - who doesn't know the actual events, and futhermore lacks sources: The subsequent undermining of Director General, Brian Moore's handling of airport authorities by the Home Secretary and the enforced focus on Heathrow queue-busting quickly dispelled any remaining confusion about a new law enforcement ethos. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I agree. It's gone. Pol430 talk to me 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The box says ‘Overviewed [sic] by Independent Police Complaints Commission/Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary’. The text says ‘The work of the Border Force is monitored by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.’ Which one is correct? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.218.162 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Border Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011174219/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790002_en_21 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790002_en_21#pt14-pb1-l1g177

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the cutters seem to armed with guns, is this a paramilitary force? Are the members/officers combatants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabauz (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not armed...and no, border force officers are not combatants or a paramillitary force.

Although there's a redirect from "UK Border Force" to "Border Force", I think it's confusing that a generic term is used to refer to the forces of a specific country.

My thinking would be to rename the article (e.g. to "UK Border Force") and let "Border Force" ("Border force"?) be a redirect to some sort of disambiguation page. Fabrickator (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose its only an issue if there is any other nation with an organisation named "Border Force". I don't think there is one? Bowchaser (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowchaser: Thanks for responding! Mostly when I post on an article talk page, nobody notices.

My perspective is that "border force" is a generic term, and even if each country with some kind of group to guard, patrol, or otherwise try to ensure that the border is not crossed in accordance with law, I would argue that when used without qualification, "border force" is ambiguous. But this is moot, since we have the Afghan Border Force and the Australian Border Force.

Normally I would think of following it with a qualifier, e.g. "Border Force (UK)", but "UK Border Force" already exists as a redirect to "Border Force", so what I'm leaning towards is to rename "Border Force" to "UK Border Force" and to have "Border force" redirect to Border guard, of course, changing existing "Border Force" links changed in accordance with the rename to "UK Border Force".

On the one hand, this may seem like much ado about nothing, but OTOH, I'm leaning towards the belief that it is an actual improvement. Fabrickator (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too bothered re it really but all I would say is that the two other organisations specifically mentioned as other examples specifically have their country name in the title of the organisation. Border Force in the UK does not.

Also I'm not sure "border force" is a particularly generic term - "border guard" I would say is used a lot around the world but not "border force" and the two examples given specifically have the name of the country in the title. There will be those who will be far more experienced with wikipedia article naming protocols than me, but I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve. If there is only one "Border Force" (real name) in the world then I would have though that should stand as it is. Bowchaser (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian Border Force" is the Australian organisation's actual name. The UK organisation's name is Border Force. Thus I'd suggest the properly disambiguated name should be "Border Force (United Kingdom)". 10mmsocket (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of what problem I am trying to solve, it iS the principle of least surprise. When I click on "Border Force", should I expect an article about "border forces" in general or about some organization the U.K. has that's called the "Border Force"? FWIW, the qualification that's used in those places where a distinction is made call it "UK Border Force". As for the idea that any random editor has enough awareness to ascertain that "border guard" is the widely accepted generic term among the world's English-speaking population, well, that takes a lot of temerity. Fabrickator (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]