Less Safe and Less Secure-Brexit going well?

tangerinenotorange said:
Wizaard said:
tangerinenotorange said:
What do you want me to say? Because of a ‘software glitch’ the UK Britain failed to tell the EU about crimes by foreign criminals. Any lack of cross-border intelligence sharing affects the safety of everyone in Europe and is wrong. What the EU is now planning to do is intentionally refuse to pass information to the UK police and intelligence. That’s obviously worse than accidentally doing so. However, I don’t believe there is any excuse whatsoever for a national authority, European or global, to refuse to share security information, particularly on terrorist risks.

With regard to the situation reported in the link. If the European Directive says “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures” (ie preventing free movement within the EU) then that’s wrong too. The USA, Australia and many other countries take a much stricter approach. Convicted criminals should have to prove their suitability to enter and reside in the UK. The fall back provision of the Directive allowing convicted criminals to be excluded from entry on a case-by-case basis "if they present a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” is less than worthless unless proceedings are going to be held in respect of every person applying to enter the UK. Even if it were, how do you quantify "presenting a genuine, present threat"? The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate he's not a risk, not on the authorities to prove he is. Fortunately, from 1 January the UK can now apply more practicable and targeted system of vetting persons entering the country.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Wizaard said:
My understanding is that EU countries share data. My further understanding is that we are not in the EU.

Brexit means Brexit. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

When some Allahu Akbar terrorist nutcase blows up another building in Paris and catches the Eurostar back to South London to prepare his next Paris atrocity and Interpol says we're not going to tell you who he is because you're not in the EU, will you think we and the French citizens should deal with that too. Oh sorry, I think your usual expression is we should "own it" 😅
 
Last edited:
tangerinenotorange said:
What do you want me to say? Because of a ‘software glitch’ the UK Britain failed to tell the EU about crimes by foreign criminals. Any lack of cross-border intelligence sharing affects the safety of everyone in Europe and is wrong. What the EU is now planning to do is intentionally refuse to pass information to the UK police and intelligence. That’s obviously worse than accidentally doing so. However, I don’t believe there is any excuse whatsoever for a national authority, European or global, to refuse to share security information, particularly on terrorist risks.

With regard to the situation reported in the link. If the European Directive says “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures” (ie preventing free movement within the EU) then that’s wrong too. The USA, Australia and many other countries take a much stricter approach. Convicted criminals should have to prove their suitability to enter and reside in the UK. The fall back provision of the Directive allowing convicted criminals to be excluded from entry on a case-by-case basis "if they present a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” is less than worthless unless proceedings are going to be held in respect of every person applying to enter the UK. Even if it were, how do you quantify "presenting a genuine, present threat"? The onus should be on the individual to demonstrate he's not a risk, not on the authorities to prove he is. Fortunately, from 1 January the UK can now apply more practicable and targeted system of vetting persons entering the country.
Click to expand...
You’ve ignored three points.

On the first article - yes the initial mistake was accidental. The subsequent cover up was not accidental.

On the second article - the fact remains entry could have been refused by Border Control and the individual returned to the point of origin. The reason entry wasn’t refused was apparently because BC was under resourced. Without real time access to the database then I can’t see the situation improving despite the rhetoric from the Home Office.

Finally the situation the country finds itself in is what the government signed up to. Any blame should therefore be fairly shared between both sides.
 
Recidivist3 said:
‘The UK failed to tell the EU about 75,000 crimes committed by foreign criminals on British soil and then covered up the scandal amid fears of damaging its reputation abroad, it has emerged.

The error went undetected for five years, during which one in three alerts on offenders which would have been sent from the police national computer to EU authorities were not delivered - potentially including rape and murder cases.

This means dangerous foreign offenders once released from prison could return to their home countries without local authorities being aware of their presence’

Care to comment TNO
Click to expand...
Just for my knowledge who specifically should notify them? Is it the Police, the Civil Servants, MI5 or Government ministers /MPs?
 
Chunkylad said:
Just for my knowledge who specifically should notify them? Is it the Police, the Civil Servants, MI5 or Government ministers /MPs?
Click to expand...
Just for your knowledge, perhaps read the full article, post 29 above.

There was a Home Office cover up so you can lay this one squarely at the feet of the government
 
Reading your article it was the police that failed to notify them and then later the Home Office did nothing to resolve it.
Diane Abbot wanted a full investigator .
 
@catinstalbans The facts remain on this thread (amongst a couple of others I’ve seen in the short time I’ve looked) You continue to post incorrect information regarding either Brexit, or Boris.

Now, without offence meant... I’m at a loss as to your mindset? You could refer to this as you’re lying on purpose (not sure why) - on a wind up, misinformed, extremely bitter about Brexit and Boris Johnson, or just incapable to be balanced and debate, or at least be accepting of when facts are brought to the debate, and your opinions proved to be false.
 
Last edited:
Certitude said:
@catinstalbans The facts remain on this thread (amongst a couple of others I’ve seen in the short time I’ve looked) You continue to post incorrect information regarding either Brexit, or Boris.

Now, without offence meant... I’m at a loss as to your mindset? You could refer to this as you’re lying on purpose (not sure why) - on a wind up, misinformed, extremely bitter about Brexit and Boris Johnson, or just incapable to be balanced and debate, or at least be accepting of when facts are brought to the debate, and your opinions proved to be false.
Click to expand...

Looks like he's got a new target.
 
Wizaard said:
I'm fully aware weve left. Feel free to point out one benefit weve had from it.
Click to expand...
Not the point I was making and you know it. You were telling some-one Brexits done, so deal with it because in this particular case it suited your agenda to say that. So I was saying the same so accept it even if it doesn't suit your agenda to do so. No amount of your moaning can change that can it. In your oft quoted words you can't have it both ways unless you want to be hypocritical of course. 😉
 
20togo said:
Not the point I was making and you know it. You were telling some-one Brexits done, so deal with it because in this particular case it suited your agenda to say that. So I was saying the same so accept it even if it doesn't suit your agenda to do so. No amount of your moaning can change that can it. In your oft quoted words you can't have it both ways unless you want to be hypocritical of course. 😉
Click to expand...
The remainers have been told it for over four years. Dont bleat because you get some back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top