# Extra checks on cross-channel travel this weekend.



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Teresa May has just issued a warning that there will be " enhanced security checks" this weekend for anyone leaving the country and particularly for those travelling via Channel ports. She advises leaving " ample" time for both journey and check in.

Take your sarnies...


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

I should think it's the ones coming IN they need to check, not the ones going out. Especially the ones that come in under lorries. 

Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bu*****d off?
All they seem to be concerned about at Calais is a few bottles of booze and some ****, will they ever get their act together?

More staff and better targeted searches is what they need.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Why not place a couple of Mosque's near the barriers and broadcast a call to prayer, photograph them.Then watch those that are not known until cleared.

cabby


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

gaspode said:


> I should think it's the ones coming IN they need to check, not the ones going out. Especially the ones that come in under lorries.
> 
> Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bu*****d off?
> All they seem to be concerned about at Calais is a few bottles of booze and some ****, will they ever get their act together?
> ...


She didn't say the checks were on the UK side of the Channel.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Grizzly said:


> She didn't say the checks were on the UK side of the Channel.


Ah - but you did say in your post "enhanced security checks this weekend for anyone *leaving* the country", which rather suggests that the extra security checks were at this side of the channel?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Well she would not want to be accused of exporting terrorists would she? :serious:

Or maybe she is checking that Farage is not attempting to escape....... :smile2:

Or she is still looking for GO ? As he has not managed to quite explain his budget...... :grin2:

There are numerous reasons for such a state of security..... :surprise:
Dave


----------



## p-c (Oct 27, 2007)

Hi
Going through a checking process could be a small price to pay.
Keep safe.
Regards
p-c


----------



## Jmdarr (Oct 9, 2013)

It's not what there saying that worries me it's what there not saying that really worries me.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

gaspode said:


> I should think it's the ones coming IN they need to check, not the ones going out. Especially the ones that come in under lorries.
> 
> Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bu*****d off?
> All they seem to be concerned about at Calais is a few bottles of booze and some ****, will they ever get their act together?
> ...


You should watch the UK border force program, they do a lot, but it's an insurmountable problem, we even have customs and immigration officers on French soil, but all they can do is chuck them off site, and back the come next day.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> it's an insurmountable problem, we even have customs and immigration officers on French soil, but all they can do is chuck them off site, and back the come next day.


There are very few insurmountable problems in this world Kev and controlling the borders properly on an island certainly isn't one of them.

To my mind, border security is currently one of the most serious issues to face the UK and as a result it needs massive resources to ensure our country is kept as safe as possible. If that costs money then so be it, I'd rather see a lot of cash thrown at the problem than hear about lots of people dying as a result of religious and power besotted fanatics.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

We have got to try and get back 'in' in ten days time. It's bad enough with an hour before the six hour ferry crossing. Then more delays.
I know about the extra security but the immigration staff have been cut back.

Ray.


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

gaspode said:


> There are very few insurmountable problems in this world Kev and controlling the borders properly on an island certainly isn't one of them.
> 
> To my mind, border security is currently one of the most serious issues to face the UK and as a result it needs massive resources to ensure our country is kept as safe as possible. If that costs money then so be it, I'd rather see a lot of cash thrown at the problem than hear about lots of people dying as a result of religious and power besotted fanatics.


How much extra cash would your proposals cost?
Where would you obtain that amount of money from?


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

An excellent letter in the Times today from Sir Hugh Orde (Chief Constable of Northern Ireland 2002-2009). He points out that during the Northern Ireland "troubles" the border was closed, there were police and army checkpoints and patrols and 24/7 manned watchtowers with armed personnel. That did not stop terrorists crossing. What did work was co-operation and intelligence sharing with European and other colleagues.

He suggests that we will keep our countries safer by continuing to share information via Europol, Eurojust and others of the many agencies that are operating.

I wonder if, the great British public are mad enough to vote out of Europe, then will this co-operation continue ?


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

mgdavid said:


> How much extra cash would your proposals cost?
> Where would you obtain that amount of money from?


I'm not the chancellor David so it's not up to me to cost these things out or decide where the money comes from but can you put a cost on the 30 odd lives lost in Belgium? Can you even put a cost on repairing the damage caused and revenue lost from a wrecked airport and metro system? What about the damage to the economy from the knock-on effects of millions of Belgians being unable to get to work for a couple of days?

I'd guess the Belgians will end up with a bill running into billions of Euro just for the physical damage, revenue loss and police time alone - and that's discounting any human costs.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Grizzly said:


> An excellent letter in the Times today from Sir Hugh Orde (Chief Constable of Northern Ireland 2002-2009). He points out that during the Northern Ireland "troubles" the border was closed, there were police and army checkpoints and patrols and 24/7 manned watchtowers with armed personnel. That did not stop terrorists crossing. What did work was co-operation and intelligence sharing with European and other colleagues.
> 
> He suggests that we will keep our countries safer by continuing to share information via Europol, Eurojust and others of the many agencies that are operating.
> 
> I wonder if, the great British public are mad enough to vote out of Europe, then will this co-operation continue ?


Grizzly

I am not aiming this at you in particular, but many people are confusing UK membership of various bodies with UK membersip of the EU

Schengen does not equate to EU as some EU countries are not in, e.g. UK.

The ECHR is not an EU institution, as it was set up, mainly under UK pressure, by a Treaty in 1947.

The European Court is an EU Institution which is tasked with compliance by EU States with EU Directives and Law.

I believe that Europol includes co-operation from non-EU States.

The EEA, of which UK was a member, along with Portugal, before signing the Treaty of Rome, has a formal agreement with the EU and currently consists of Norway, Iceland and Liechenstein, I think, but excludes Switzerland, which has its own Treaties, similar to the EEA, with the EU.

I make this point because I think a lot of people do not understand the different relationships that the UK and various other countries have with the other countries in 'Europe' - whatever that means.

I stand to be corrected on minor points but in general I am right - the term Europe has so many different meanings.

Geoff


----------



## HarleyDave (Jul 1, 2007)

Thanks Geoff

I think many of us (me included) would benefit from a table of what "arrangements" are currently in place for UK (and not - like Schengen) and which might be changed were we to leave and which might stay as is

Might help us make a more informed decision come June

Cheers

Dave


----------



## fatbuddha (Aug 7, 2006)

we drove through Belgium yesterday and there were signs on the motorway warning of queues as you enter France - as it happened, there weren't any hold ups at all and very little security presence.

we came back via Dunkirk this morning - nothing untoward with security - just seemed like a normal day. no sign whatsoever of immigrants or any issues relating to it.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Sadly you could throw as much money and people at border security as you like but it wont stop terrorists.

There are plenty of them already here no doubt and you can get the ingredients to make a bomb in B&Q and Boots. Guns are not impossible to get hold of here either.

All you can do is put trust in our security services and pump money into them. So far they seem to be doing an excellent job but sooner or later the terrorists will get lucky here as well.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Grizzly said:


> An excellent letter in the Times today from Sir Hugh Orde (Chief Constable of Northern Ireland 2002-2009). He points out that during the Northern Ireland "troubles" the border was closed, there were police and army checkpoints and patrols and 24/7 manned watchtowers with armed personnel. That did not stop terrorists crossing. What did work was co-operation and intelligence sharing with European and other colleagues.
> 
> He suggests that we will keep our countries safer by continuing to share information via Europol, Eurojust and others of the many agencies that are operating.
> 
> I wonder if, the great British public are mad enough to vote out of Europe, then will this co-operation continue ?


Apparently the info shared to Europe is 10x the info received, what with American and GCHQ the remainder of Europe would be the far greatest loser if they 'played up', also according to the former MI5 chief that if we left, security would be better.

tony


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Point taken Geoff...and others. When it comes down to it I think no-one has a completely clear idea what the effects of Brexit on national and international security will be. 

Rob Wainwright, director of Europol, is widely reported today to be deeply concerned however and who am I to argue with him ? I'd rather be inside the club than out when it comes to information sharing with neighbours.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Grizzly said:


> .
> 
> Rob Wainwright, director of Europol, is widely reported today to be deeply concerned QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

I doubt whether much security information sharing goes through the channels of the EU Commision or the EU Parliament. If i were head og GHQC, I would not send anything to Brussels. 

Just another example of their ineffectiveness.

As for security information sharing, many countries share with the USA, partially at least, but USA is not even affiliated to the EU. 

So Security sharing has nothing to do with the IN/OUT of EU debate.

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

It might have nothing to do with it but its like anything. You p1ss people off, they wont help you. Europe will not be happy if we pull out of the EU. I am sure we wont be top of any countries lists when it comes to offering help and information. Just an opinion, not facts before anyone starts asking for flaming lists or sources.


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

gaspode said:


> I'm not the chancellor David so it's not up to me to cost these things out or decide where the money comes from but can you put a cost on the 30 odd lives lost in Belgium? Can you even put a cost on repairing the damage caused and revenue lost from a wrecked airport and metro system? What about the damage to the economy from the knock-on effects of millions of Belgians being unable to get to work for a couple of days?
> 
> I'd guess the Belgians will end up with a bill running into billions of Euro just for the physical damage, revenue loss and police time alone - and that's discounting any human costs.


So, you've no idea then. Sadly that doesn't lend any weight or credence to your opinions.
Millions of Belgians unable to work?
There's not even one million people work in Brussels, and most of the city carrried on, many offices and shops were open next day as usual.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

nicholsong said:


> I doubt whether much security information sharing goes through the channels of the EU Commision or the EU Parliament. If i were head og GHQC, I would not send anything to Brussels.
> 
> Just another example of their ineffectiveness.
> 
> ...


The ex MI6 head said this morning, in guarded terms, that not all info is passed to Europe as certain countries are as "leaky as a sieve" :surprise:

tony


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

mgdavid said:


> So, you've no idea then. Sadly that doesn't lend any weight or credence to your opinions.


Indeed, I haven't any idea of the actual costs involved, and neither have you - but having occasionally handled consequential loss insurance claims in the past I can have a pretty good guess based on experience - and I strongly suspect that the total consequential losses would more than cover the cost of greatly enhanced border security.
Like yourself I'm offering only an opinion, credible or otherwise.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

To quote from David Laws' recent memoirs:

*"I glanced around at the other civil servants, who smiled knowingly. And then I was let in on the great secret: 'Minister, immigration has never really been a priority for the Home Office. The Home Office is really only institutionally interested in issues such as crime, disorder and terrorism. Immigration has always been, well, a secondary concern for the Home Office.'"
*

I presume he didn't make it up and I must confess it doesn't greatly surprise me.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

One thing that has often puzzled me. 

When we have had security checks the officer doing it always scans the steering wheel and cab door handles with a portable device, I assume sniffing out traces of explosive. It happens, predictably, every time. I don't think its a diversionary tactic as I always watch what else is being done round the van.

Surely even the most dim-witted amateur terrorist would know enough not to leave traces in either of these place -or anywhere else for that matter ?

I'm sure we're missing something, and would not wish state secrets to be given away, but would like to know why it is done.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Grizzly said:


> One thing that has often puzzled me.
> 
> When we have had security checks the officer doing it always scans the steering wheel and cab door handles with a portable device, I assume sniffing out traces of explosive. It happens, predictably, every time. I don't think its a diversionary tactic as I always watch what else is being done round the van.
> 
> ...


It's an explosive / drugs sniffer wand

tony


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

GEMMY said:


> Grizzly said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


And his job as Director of Europol :wink2:


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

GEMMY said:


> It's an explosive / drugs sniffer wand
> 
> tony


Quite. I knew that but WHY ? Would you, if you intended to take explosives into the tunnel, knowing that your van will be checked on steering wheel and cab door handles, leave traces of explosives there ? Or anywhere ?

What bothers me is that the check is ALWAYS in those 2 places and never anywhere else - like me or my OH or our shoes etc.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

It really does make you wonder G just how basic and simplistic the checks are.

After Lockabie and it was proved to be a transistor radio. We all had to make our radios, walkmans work in front of security.
After Richard Green and his shoes we now all have to remove our shoes.
Then there was another bomb attributed to a laptop. Since then all portable devices are scanned. 

The security services only seem to learn after an event. But a bit of proactive searching might bring results.

Ray.


----------

