Off Topic Political Debate

Obviously the security forces are trying desperately to keep tabs on the worst of these guys, I would have said they should all be locked up until they no longer pose a threat but they seem to become more radicalised in detention than before.

What we do not need is more arriving from Europe.

The civil liberty brigade arguing against surveillance have been quiet recently.

 

If we do not record who leaves the country, how do we know who is where? One simple measure that should have been applied years ago is to scan every passport of those leaving the country as well as entering it.

 

I'm glad I'm not responsible for tracking the returning jihadists I cannot find my glasses half the time!!

 

The government and media have blown the Islamist terrorism threat out of proportion, giving extremists publicity that is counter-productive, a former head of Britain's intelligence service has said.

Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of MI6 at the time of the Iraq invasion, said that Britons spreading "blood-curdling" messages on the internet should be ignored. He told an audience in London 7/7/14 there had been a fundamental change in the nature of Islamist extremism since the Arab spring. It had created a major political problem in the Middle East but the west, including Britain, was only "marginally affected".

He made it clear he believed the way the British government and the media were giving the extremists the "oxygen of publicity" was counter-productive. The media were making monsters of "misguided young men, rather pathetic figures" who were getting coverage "more than their wildest dreams", said Dearlove, adding: "It is surely better to ignore them."

In the light of current events can we agree with him?

 

No.

He appears to have said this way before the Russian airliner was blown up, the Paris attacks and now the Brussels atrocities. Many other attempts have been thwarted.

His advice this week is very clear in claiming the UK would be safer leaving the EU.

Any government not warning the public about the probability of terrorist attacks would be a dereliction of their duty.

 

I do not agree with him either. I also think I would rather take the advise of a man who is dealing with security problems today rather than someone who left the security services 12 years ago and until last year has since spent his days in the University at Cambridge. In less than 2 years he has been proved to be very wrong, so his judgement is questionable to say the least.

 

Before ISIS started their attacks in Europe it could have been argued that the dangers to us were overblown. With hindsight it was a pretty daft statement.

I'm sure he is more qualified to judge national security issues than many politicians such as our Home Secretary. It is obviously safer for the UK to decide who should enter and remain in the country.

 

Folk who leave this country to fight with ISIS should have their passports removed and never be able to return to Britain .
Alternatively , round them up and fly them back over the conflict zone ( without a parachute ) . We have become soft and they will exploit this .
Alternatively , we could be really , really , really , really nice to the poor misguided darlings and send them to a health spa , invite them round to the local Vicar for cuppa and slice of battenberg . ( always had that when visiting my nan ) .

 

Qualified maybe, but totally out of date. If you have seen the news today you might have seen lorry loads of illegal immigrants who made it through Calais and Dover. They were found in Kent. How many more have made it through and not been discovered? Several people who are also well qualified have been interviewed and said you will never stop people getting into the country who want to. If people stopped believing that the UK is safe from those already in the country and worked more on weeding those out, then the country would be safer, as most of those making it across the Channel illegally are not potential bombers, but people looking for a better and hopefully safer life.

 

The french minister in charge of immigration has already stated that the UK will send illegal immigrants back to France in the event of Brexit.

There is no difference between potential bombers or those seeking a better life, none should be admitted until they have previously gained permission to enter the UK.

 

The French minister has also said that the UK will have to process the people in Dover when Calais stops having UK immigration officials there. But that is not the real problem, it is the ones who get in unnoticed. As the UKIP defence spokesman admitted stop the Calais route, which is not 100%, and you simply move the problem further along the coast. I expect the UKIP spokesman to get fired any day now for being honest.

 

The senior French minister actually has the say on the matter. The UK should take a very hard line and just return all illegal immigrants to France, it will then be up to the French to process them as they seem fit.

 

Clearly you do not know what the legal situation is under International, not EU law. There were approximately 6000 people in the Jungle at Calais. Although under French law you cannot turn people out of accommodation in winter, the Jungle was cleared because the region provided Portacabin accommodation for 1500. The only access to these was by electronic hand recognition that would have the means of telling who people were. Some accepted the chance to have heat and dry conditions, but more than 4500 have moved further up towards Dunkerque because they do not wish to be registered in France. They all hope to make it to the UK when they will happily be processed. If they arrive illegally without papers, you cannot just send them back without going through due process. There are for example many Indians in the UK without papers, and you cannot send them back because India will not accept them, as there is no treaty between the two countries. The UK does not have anywhere near enough places to hold people due to be deported, 3500 in total, and judging by the news today 40% of deportation flights never actually happen despite having been paid for.

The simple answers, like just send them back, is what it says, simple, but not workable. Think the whole thing through, and you will want something that really works.

 

If the EU, especially the Schengen members had followed their own laws then the migrants would have be processed in the country of arrival. They need to find ways of turning back the boats and/or setting up safe havens in North and West Africa.

 

Police raid in Paris tonight thwarted another potential terrorist attack. There is a great possibility of further attacks which will only increase the likelihood of Brexit, maybe this is part of a ISIS plan to damage Europe.?

 

How can you honestly be so smug about innocent people potentially being blown up? I know you're keen on the Nasty Party but how far will you take it to point-score?

 

This is a grown up debate, try to be more constructive.

 

The European country of arrival is normally Greece, Spain or Italy - for years those countries have been complaining that the rest of Europe was hiding behind them, but this problem has been ignored for too long. Why should those countries be made to bear the brunt of this problem alone ? Or Turkey be prepared to take upwards of 2 million refugees just so that you can remain undisturbed behind the channel ? In Germany we have many now stateless people ie. people who have thrown away all of their identifying documents, and where the country of arrival is not known - what do you suggest we do with them ? By safe havens in Africa or the middle east you presume that we have some kind of authority over these places - that we have the power to set these places up with or without the agreement of the local authorities. Jordan already has 1 in 4 of its population registered as having refugee status, Lebanon and Turkey also have large populations of them. The vast majority of refugees from Afghanistan have made their homes in Iran and Pakistan (and Afghanistan has lost nearly a third of its population). The vast majority of refugees Worldwide are housed in neighbouring countries already and what Europe is being asked to take is minimal by comparison.

 

In reality Cologne the situation is not as simple as you portray, there many different scenarios in the asylum/economic migrant issue. You mainly describe the people felling persecution and war as in Syria and these people have deliberately chosen to leave and take the perilous journey to a better life in Europe - they have funds to pay the smugglers and their travel. It has always been the view of the British Government that it would be better for these displaced people to stay in places of safety closer to their homes and to support this our government has spent Billions supporting such camps run by the UN and other NGO's in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan - Britain is by far the biggest contributor to this kind of aid in the world. Therefore the British Government does not support the open door policy originally broadcast by that lunatic Merkel and who is now living to regret it, but will take a small number of families who have bad medical conditions for whom living in such camps would be very difficult. These people tend to keep their passports, identity cards etc and will register as soon as they arrive in an EU country. It's a debate if the British Government approach or the Merkel approach is better for Britain and the asylum seekers..but it needs to be viewed through the eyes of the British people. You say what Europe is being asked to take is minimal, how can millions of people arriving in a country be called minimal - how can the infrastructure and facilities cope? I see that in Germany many are being housed in a old Airport building, but how long before they want something more than that? What jobs are available in France, Spain & Italy when you consider the levels of unemployment that already exist there.
But there is also the economic migrant issue. Mixed up with those fleeing Syria and those coming from North Africa into Italy & Malta are a number of economic migrants that are just seeking a better life - now you might consider that as something any country should accept, but the vast majority of people in Britain would not. These are the people who have no papers as it quickly discounts them from being accepted as an asylum seekers and they also refuse to register in the first country they land in - why would that be? There are many reasons, why would those in The Jungle at Calais not register in France or go to Germany where they would be accepted and processed. Many of these people are already failed asylum seekers or have already been deported from Britain or they have family here and this is their only way to get in - these are the single men groups in these camps. Have you asked yourself why are all these Pakistani men travelling through Afghanistan and Turkey and paying smugglers all that money to come to the EU, when they could get a visa and jump on a plane in Islamabad for probably less than half the price? Could it be it's because they would never be granted a visa?
But you are right, those with no papers and refuse to reveal their country when they register cannot be returned if their claim fails. I would suggest that they are offered a choice, either come clean and provide details that can be verified by their own embassy or be interned. We set up camps in this country and intern them - not vey nice, but it they cannot be honest, then it's the best we can offer them.
There are probably a number of other measure that would choke the flow - the British Government should declare Turkey as a country that is not safe for British Citizens to travel to. This would cause the travel insurance companies to not offer policies for travel to Turkey and massively hit the Turkish tourist trade. If they want to make money from smuggling and their government turns a blind eye to it, then lose the British tourist Euro.

 

Why should people who had decent jobs and were displaced by Western bombs be forced to sit around in camps for years? They want to have jobs, and will probably go home at some point when the situation is stable. However many millions governments throw at the problem, it's still just going towards maintaining camps, there aren't jobs or prospects for the people living there...

Also, 'the British tourist Euro'? What are you on about?