I am still not quite sure whether it was the Socialist Workers’ Party or the Adam Smith Institute that sneakily managed to take over the UK Border Agency while no-one was looking this summer.

Think you’ll find it was the ASI.

The SWP would have been a bit noisier about it……….

Good grief – an eminently sensible article. Of course we should sign up to Schengen and save ourself massive expense checking people who don’t need checking for no good reason.

And the Miliband/Cooper – ‘look we can be even more bullying and authoritarian than the tories’ response has been absolutely pathetic.

“I suspect those ghastly continentals are laughing their clogs off on this one.”

TBH they’re probably too busy soiling themselves at the impending Eurozone crisis.

“Frankly, Britain could quite easily have scrapped the majority of passport checks about three decades ago. Permanently. It really is high time that the UK signed up to Schengen.”

That may well be the case, but if you’ve provided any arguments to support your position, they seem to have passed me by.

Exuse me but I would like to know:

(1) why you back a policy of open borders (you don’t give any reasons to support this position)- and does this mean that anyone can come in anytime without passports, checks etc?

(2) why is someone who does not back a policy of open borders automatically a xenophobe in your opinion? Can you not be of the left and reasonably support some controls/ restrictions on border entry?

(3) are you yourself of the far left. I ask this as you attack Miliband and Mrs Balls neither of whom along with the vast majority of the Labour Parliamentary Party are of the far left.

Please note I ask these questions in order to understand your position – there is no sarcasm or irony here. My own position is not fixed regarding this policy.

Border checks, of the exaggerated sort demanded by loony xenophobes (yes that’s you ‘policy of open borders’ person) are unworkable, grotesquely expensive and a blasted nuisance. We should not have officials demanding to know where we are going and where we have been every time we want to visit out nearest neighbours.

They do not protect us from any danger – the number of people from the rest of the EU who have been refused entry under this system is minute to the point of invisibility. They don’t stop terrorists. They put off tourists. There are large numbers of unemployed people in this country who might have jobs were it not for the fact that newly rich Chinese people are voting in their thousands for Schengen by going there for the holidays (because you get the whole continent on one visa).

The enormous amounts of money wasted on unnecessary border controls could be spent on infrastructure, roads, hospitals, things we need. It could even, if you must, be used to reduce taxation. There is no sense or reason in what we’ve got. That’s why even Teresa May was quietly trying to scale it down. Staying out of Schengen is ridiculous.

No surprise to see the ghastly May trying to avoid responsibility. Funny how tory scum always lecture about taking responsibility, but never apply it to themselves..

I guess we can add responsibility to taxes and morals that are only for the little people. I am so old I can remember when tories lectured about how civil servants could not answer to parliament and so it was not right that ministers should slag them off. Just another example of tory hypocrisy in opposition.

Joining Schengen could avoid some of the frustration endured by arrival at a typical UK Airport: this is my experience from yesterday at Liverpool:

http://zelo.tv/tsB4r2

but it wouldn’t eliminate ineptitude inside or outside the terminal.

But surely we’d all be murdered in our beds by foreigners?

Is it possible to oppose open borders and not be xenophobic, do you suppose, or does one imply the other?

People who migrate-either alone or in groups-do not do so without reason; usually political oppression, natural disasters or economic hardship. And national borders cannot stop this.

State structures who promise to do this would have to resort to armed guards, building of walls or erecting fences.Even then, sheer numbers of desperate people would overwhelm these efforts.

And its always been so. Remember the event when Moses was leading people to the promised land? Even the Red Sea was unable to prevent it!

This idea has nothing to do with ‘open borders’. It’s about being able to move freely about Europe. There is a border around Schengen. Let’s be inside it.

That doesn’t answer my question, but the idea clearly has a lot to do with open borders, in that the border will be more open than it is now (or isn’t, as the case may be).

So the argument is you drive from one country to another without any borders, how nice!

But the thing is you DROVE THROUGH!
You did not suddenly flop your uninvited arse into any if the countries and set up home! With you multiple kids, perhaps even multiple wives, you did not hold out your grasping claw for money handouts, you did not burden the local schools with your kids who did not speak the language, or burden their health service with more babies, maybe inbred babies with handicaps from your first cousin marriage.
And you didn’t insist the countries change their laws, customs and treat you as special to make you feel welcome.

You see? Your example, like your Britain hating commie ideals is a fetid plot some of us can see through!

Notice the massive jumps in honour killings, child marriage, female circumcisions and even witchcraft child abuse and even murder?? That’s ALL imported into this country by your stinking immigration free for all!

Idiot.

So the argument is you drive from one country to another without any borders, how nice!

But the thing is you DROVE THROUGH!
You did not suddenly flop your uninvited arse into any if the countries and set up home! With you multiple kids, perhaps even multiple wives, you did not hold out your grasping claw for money handouts, you did not burden the local schools with your kids who did not speak the language, or burden their health service with more babies, maybe inbred babies with handicaps from your first cousin marriage.
And you didn’t insist the countries change their laws, customs and treat you as special to make you feel welcome.

You see? Your example, like your Britain hating commie ideals is a fetid plot some of us can see through!

Notice the massive jumps in honour killings, child marriage, female circumcisions and even witchcraft child abuse and even murder?? That’s ALL imported into this country by your stinking immigration free for all!

Idiot.

@14 – Claw, right. Because you understand the rules.

Wait, you don’t, you’re a racist bigot. You’re a socialist yourself. National Socialist, to be precise.

And you show a typical lack of knowledge of the bloody history of the United Kingdom, which is remarkably uniform in it’s ethnicity, having very few immigrants compared to most countries in the world.

Of course, I’m sure you think Cromwell readmitting my people into this country was a plot, too.

I’m unsure whether or not to respond to ‘man of truth teller’ lest I cause some sort of psychotic break. But in case he hadn’t noticed we were talking about the Schengen agreement.

Damn those French, Germans and Poles with their honour killings, child marriage and witchcraft child abuse.

can I just say this article is sensible? It has therefore no prospect whatsoever of being enacted. Xenophobia cuts reason cuts common sense.

@ 9 vimothy

“Is it possible to oppose open borders and not be xenophobic [?]”

Yes it is, and in fairness I don’t think the OP was implying otherwise. He appears to be saying that Milliband and Cooper are playing specifically to xenophobes, as with the example of trying to link gun crime and foreigners in the public mind.

There are counties on this planet that appear lax on honour killings, child marriage, female circumcisions and even witchcraft child abuse and even murder?

As we as a collective society are against that, what is your point?

It is just xenophobic to apply all of that to anyone that comes here.

Incidentally, it is not at all clear that we do not have lots of folk that are indigenous that do most of these things, especially murder.

Could you stop worrying about foreigners so much and look over your shoulder at Myra Hindley, Beverlly Alit, Stephen Griffiths et al?

Perhaps not.

Most of the gun crime in London IS committed by immigrants!
FACT.

Somali gunmen, Yardie gangsters, Russian mob, general Black culture imported from Africa and America.
The Police have said many times almost all gun crime is committed by, or has victims of, non-white, non-English, rarely British origin.

That’s hard statistical FACT!!

Whether you vile racists and apologists like it or not.

Most of the gun crime in London IS committed by immigrants!
FACT.

Somali gunmen, Yardie gangsters, Russian mob, general Black culture imported from Africa and America.
The Police have said many times almost all gun crime is committed by, or has victims of, non-white, non-English, rarely British origin.

That’s hard statistical FACT!!

Whether you vile racists and apologists like it or not.

5. Chris

Border checks, of the exaggerated sort demanded by loony xenophobes (yes that’s you ‘policy of open borders’ person) are unworkable, grotesquely expensive and a blasted nuisance. We should not have officials demanding to know where we are going and where we have been every time we want to visit out nearest neighbours.

Care to provide any evidence of any of this? Most countries have border checks. They do not strike me as unworkable. There is no reason to check British people as they come and go, but foreigners, of course there is good reason.

They do not protect us from any danger – the number of people from the rest of the EU who have been refused entry under this system is minute to the point of invisibility.

The fact that the system is broken is not proof it does not work.

They don’t stop terrorists.

Actually there is quite a lot of evidence that they do.

They put off tourists. There are large numbers of unemployed people in this country who might have jobs were it not for the fact that newly rich Chinese people are voting in their thousands for Schengen by going there for the holidays (because you get the whole continent on one visa).

Nonsense. Schengen countries are very tough for the Chinese. If a Chinese person wants to go to France, they have to pay a deposit, they have to show where they will spend each and every night of their stay, they need to have proof that they have booked hotel rooms, they need to show tickets for how they will travel while in France and when, and finally they need to prove they will leave the country. The only country in Europe that is easier for Chinese to visit than the UK is Switzerland – and now Ireland. But only because the Irish will accept a British visa.

The enormous amounts of money wasted on unnecessary border controls could be spent on infrastructure, roads, hospitals, things we need.

And Intensive Care for the victims of the inevitable crime wave. And prison cells.

Schengen is not going to last even on the Mainland. That someone so incompetent he does not want to do his job wants to be put out of a job in neither here nor there. We do not hire border guards for their convenience but for ours. He needs to be fired and replaced by someone who will do his job.

@22 What a strange post!

Let’s go through it

“Care to provide any evidence of any of this?”

Of what? Are you not aware of border checks? That’s what we’re discussing. “Most countries have border checks.” Most European countries do not have border checks with their neighbours. Again, that is the point of the original post – this is about Schengen. Do you not know what that is? “They do not strike me as unworkable.” They’ve descended into chaos – so that even Teresa May was trying to scale them down.

There is no, zero, evidence that they stop terrorists.

There is no sign of an “inevitable crime wave”. The Schengen countries have not suffered one.

What they have had is large numbers of tourists who’ve realised they can get the whole of the continent on one visa. It may be tough, but it gives you a lot to go at.

“Schengen is not going to last even on the Mainland.” You have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. It’s been a great success for its members.

Almost every country in Europe outside of the Balkans now forms part of what is a vast single state for travel purposes…

And how they’re enjoying it.

23. Chris

Of what? Are you not aware of border checks?

So you are going to start out by admitting that they are working? So you’re wrong about that are you?

That’s what we’re discussing. “Most countries have border checks.” Most European countries do not have border checks with their neighbours. Again, that is the point of the original post – this is about Schengen. Do you not know what that is? “They do not strike me as unworkable.” They’ve descended into chaos – so that even Teresa May was trying to scale them down.

No, the refusal of the British government to properly manage the border is unworkable. But that does not mean border checks are. Other countries manage them just fine.

There is no, zero, evidence that they stop terrorists.

Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence that terrorist groups are forced to dip into the bottom of the barrel because they cannot find competent people with the right passports or visas. Border checks are a major shaper of modern terrorism from the need to select Saudis for 9-11 to the fact that Richard Reid was picked to go to America. The best example being Israel. They enforced their border with the PA and terrorism has plummeted. As you may have noticed.

There is no sign of an “inevitable crime wave”. The Schengen countries have not suffered one.

Sorry but have you ever been to a Schengen country? It is absurd to say that the French, Spanish and Italians have not been hit by a crime wave from young Gypsies. Go and talk to anyone in Paris or Barcelona. Anyone at all. Go to Rome. See if you manage to last a week without some interaction with gangs.

What they have had is large numbers of tourists who’ve realised they can get the whole of the continent on one visa. It may be tough, but it gives you a lot to go at.

Maybe but not if they are Chinese. The Schengen countries are vastly tougher than we are and they demand vastly more in the way of paperwork than we do for Chinese tourists. Which may explain why a quick google check shows that over a million Chinese tourists come to Britain each year while France gets under 600,000.

You have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. It’s been a great success for its members.

Apart from the fact the Danes are re-introducing controls and the French are thinking about it too, no. But it won’t.

Apart from the fact the Danes are re-introducing controls

The new government scrapped them http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jbW7irt253O63DRhb6W7u9U4dA0A?docId=CNG.17c20ed419fc908f617a5f0d64c1aa1b.311

Man of truth man @21, 22,

None of the countries you mention are within Shengen, last time I looked, FACT

The problem here is that there is a difference between border checks and immigration controls.

As a member of the EU the UK, and all other member states, allow the free movement of EU citizens, they can enter any other member state freely. The UK has limited ability to prevent the entry of EU nationals as there are no ‘immigration’ issues with them. What we are doing when making people coming from the other member states go through “border control” is simply asking them to prove they are an EU National, if they are we have to let them in. Being that 60% of travellers to the UK are EU nationals we are spending money checking people we can’t stop entering the country anyway. Being that all but a few of these travellers are on business, studies or holidaying this seems an expensive way to not achieve very much. Doesn’t it make sense to stop spending money on checking people we can’t stop, forming up long queues and driving away trade and visitors, and instead spend that money targeting and finding the people we actually want to prevent entering the country? This is like solving the needle in a haystack problem by inspecting every straw in every haystack in a field one by one to find the one needle; eventually farmers are going to stop getting you to manage their hay because it takes too long.
Joining Schengen area isn’t about ‘opening us up to foreign criminals to enter freely’, if anyone bothered to read the Schengen agreement, convention or acquis they would see that there are a number of other measures that member states take in order to ensure that the security of themselves and the other member states is maintained. This includes sharing immigration and policing information about those people that are wanted within, or should be prevented entering the Schengen area, and being able to find, track and detain those people that are deemed to be a danger.
Of course everyone likes to call the terrorism card because it scares people, but again, looking at facts isn’t important, like that the July 7 bombers were all UK passport holders (only 1 wasn’t born here) therefore no amount of border checks would have stopped them because they were all here legally; its targeted intelligence that finds your terrorists not blanket checking of travel documents, but we can’t do enough of that because we are too busy spending time and money checking 6 year olds from France coming here on holiday.
Unfortunately proper investigative journalism is basically dead, what the Daily Mail’s of this world want are stories about how good ole blightly is keeping/not keeping out them pesky foreigners with their criminal foreign ways, facts are irrelevant.

The asylum seekers who get stuck at the channel ports would be saved that ordeal.
Most of Europe demands that people carry ID cards at all times. I don’t know if that makes a difference.

There was an article the other day about the UK Border Agency officials ‘illegally targeting’ bus passengers in Liverpool.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/05/border-agency-targeting-bus-passengers

28. Blank-Lines

if anyone bothered to read the Schengen agreement, convention or acquis they would see that there are a number of other measures that member states take in order to ensure that the security of themselves and the other member states is maintained.

Although these are irrelevant as the Courts will not let us use them. Just as the Human Rights Act guarantees a family life – unless there is a public safety or security issue. Courts now routinely ignore that.

like that the July 7 bombers were all UK passport holders (only 1 wasn’t born here) therefore no amount of border checks would have stopped them because they were all here legally

That is an interesting use of the world legally. Muktar Said Ibrahim, for instance, was jailed for five years for violent criminal offenses. He should have been deported. But of course he was given leave to stay. There are questions about whether or not at least one other of the 24-7 bombers was born in the country he claimed to have been fleeing from. Proper border checks would not have let at least some of these people in.

its targeted intelligence that finds your terrorists not blanket checking of travel documents,

That is not true either. Targeted intelligence rarely achieves anything. What works is Israel’s great big fence. What also works, with serial killers too, is routine police checks.

but we can’t do enough of that because we are too busy spending time and money checking 6 year olds from France coming here on holiday.

The costs are trivial.

The Queen recently approved the Conservative policy changes to the police reform bill restricting the rights of people to bring about citizens arrest for suspected war criminals entering this country. The Tory party has been readily welcoming the steady flow of Israeli war criminals entering this country through our airports. Whilst trivial insubstantiated excuses are made to lock up Muslim’s. Border control relaxation pales into insignifigance in comparison. It once again shows what sort of Government we have by the friends they keep.

Oh look another Jew hating Muslim apOlogist!

List me the terrorist acts and threats done to the uk by people from Israel?
Muslims are stopped and targeted for basic factual reasons!!! You fucking appeaser!

Oh look another Jew hating Muslim apOlogist!

List me the terrorist acts and threats done to the uk by people from Israel?
Muslims are stopped and targeted for basic factual reasons!!! You fucking appeaser!

List me the terrorist acts and threats done to the uk by people from Israel?
Muslims are stopped and targeted for basic factual reasons!!! You fucking appeaser!
===

Good point – it’s the Irish we should be keeping out

Except, of course, that we have open borders with Dublin.

@30 – Then complain about UK courts, not about the HRA. No, you go for the rights themselves, which shows how much you hate the proles…

“Targeted intelligence rarely achieves anything. ”

…It’s how Israel handles people flying in. You don’t have a clue, as usual.

SMFS,

What also works, with serial killers too, is routine police checks.

In another thread you say the police are useless.

Do you make it up as you go along?

@ 36 ukliberty

“Do you make it up as you go along?”

In fairness, there is a consistent methodology. If the argument doesn’t end with “and that’s why we’re all DOOMED and/or must shoot people”, it doesn’t get posted.

@ 21

“That’s hard statistical FACT!!”

Not that you haven’t totally proved your point by writing “fact” in capital letters, but do you have any actual hard statistics to back up this FACT!! of yours?

36. ukliberty

In another thread you say the police are useless.

Do you make it up as you go along?

What do you think the contradiction between those two things is precisely? If they were not useless perhaps actual investigation work might have more of an impact. But they are. This is not uniquely British either. Son of Sam was not caught due to the massive manpower put in by the American police. He got a parking ticket. Nor was Peter Sutcliffe caught by the huge police operation into his killings. Although they did interview him nine times. He was found with a prostitute in his car by a routine patrol. Donald Neilson was arrested when two police officers stopped and searched him – despite being the most wanted man in Britain at the time. The coroner actually expressed alarm at the number of dead patients he was having to process from Harold Shipman. So the police did an investigation – and cleared him. He went on to kill three more people and was only arrested because he killed the mother of someone important in the legal world. Even catching the Great Train Robbers relied almost entirely on help from the public.

@ 39 SMFS

All true examples, AFAIK, but this sounds quite a lot like hindsight bias. Do you know precisely where the police went wrong in these cases, in a fashion where a normally competent person would not have been likely to make the same mistake? To pick one example: what were the police’s reasons for clearing Shipman, and what exactly did they do wrong based on the evidence available to them at the time?

I’m not being snarky, these are genuine questions, and I’m open to the possibility that you’re right (although I feel I should point out that you’ve veered into talking about US police as well as UK police). But there’s a massive tendency for people to decide that the answer to a difficult question is “obvious” once someone else has proven it.

40. Chaise Guevara

All true examples, AFAIK, but this sounds quite a lot like hindsight bias. Do you know precisely where the police went wrong in these cases, in a fashion where a normally competent person would not have been likely to make the same mistake? To pick one example: what were the police’s reasons for clearing Shipman, and what exactly did they do wrong based on the evidence available to them at the time?

The police claim they gave the investigation to young and inexperienced officers in the Shipman Case. If they have come up with any other reason I don’t know of it. They don’t seem to have done anything with the evidence given to them. They don’t seem to have exhumed a single body or done any medical tests at all. Which is how he was eventually caught. As far as I know they asked if he did it and he said no so they said that’s fine then.

I don’t like hindsight. I especially don’t like hindsight with people who I think are trying their best. But what can you say?

@ 41 SMFS

“The police claim they gave the investigation to young and inexperienced officers in the Shipman Case. If they have come up with any other reason I don’t know of it. They don’t seem to have done anything with the evidence given to them. They don’t seem to have exhumed a single body or done any medical tests at all. Which is how he was eventually caught. As far as I know they asked if he did it and he said no so they said that’s fine then.”

Can I assume that the last sentence is sarcasm? I don’t think I know anyone who honestly thinks that police ask “was it you what done it?” and are satisified when the suspect says “nope!”.

My guess, and it IS a guess, is that Shipman wasn’t viewed as a particularly major candidate at the time. And that the police had a lot of other lines of investigation. So the juniors officers who were sent to interview him were probably the same who interviewed another 20 people.

“I don’t like hindsight. I especially don’t like hindsight with people who I think are trying their best. But what can you say?”

In all honesty, I have more faith in your assessment of the matter after reading that. Hindsight is an important issue, and a lot of people fail to understand it. But I’m still not convinced that incompetence was the problem, as opposed to ordinary people trying to deal with a difficult case.

SMFS,

What do you think the contradiction between those two things is precisely?

The contradiction is where in one place you say they are useful and in another place that they are useless.

Why present things in such a digital, absolutist way? Something black or white or both, but never grey?

What you appear to really mean is that sometimes investigations haven’t proceeded as well as you would like.

[Shipman] went on to kill three more people and was only arrested because he killed the mother of someone important in the legal world.

That’s not an entirely fair or full account, is it? Someone’s mother died, the mother left a will, a solicitor raised concerns about the will to the daughter, who went to the police, who had the body exhumed and examined.

In what way was the daughter “important in the legal world”? AFAIK she was an “ordinary high street solicitor”?

(The Inquiry found problems throughout, not merely with the police.)

UKL @ 43:

“The contradiction is where in one place you say they are useful and in another place that they are useless.”

Not necessarily. It’s quite valid to believe both that well-carried-out police checks can reduce crime, but also to believe that the police force in this country isn’t competent enough to carry them out very well. You could reasonably dispute the accuracy of both of these statements, but neither of them contradicts the other.

So I am to understand “useless”, then, as not meaning wholly useless, but some degree of uselessness / usefulness.

I see.

@ 45:

A procedure has to be carried out well for it to be useful. If the people carrying it out aren’t competent enough to do so, then of course the procedure won’t be much use. However, that would just make “the procedure as carried out by these particular people” useless; the procedure itself wouldn’t be.

Put it another way: if you’re ill, it’s probably a good idea to go and see a doctor. If the doctor you go and see isn’t very good, his checks won’t be very good. However, that wouldn’t mean that “going to see the doctor when you are ill” is always a bad idea; it would just mean that you need to find a better doctor. Similarly, if the constables in a police force aren’t good enough to carry out routine checks properly, that wouldn’t prove that routine checks are bad in principle, just that they wouldn’t be carried out very well in this particular force’s jurisdiction.

XXX, perhaps you haven’t been following the discussion.

You write with nuance, SMFS doesn’t; that’s really my point.

I’ll leave it there.

Er, here are some blog posts from the ASI on immigration:

Immigration Makes Us Poorer:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/immigration-restrictions-make-us-poorer/

The governments immigration cap is economic illiteracy:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/the-government's-immigration-cap-is-economic-illiteracy/

A cap on immigration will hurt Britain:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/a-cap-on-immigration-will-hurt-britain/

Hardly opposition to immigration controls is it?

There’s a case for us joining the Schengen area for ease of travel throughout Europe. I’m not convinced though because as things are it would be the same as us having open borders with the Middle East and Africa. The border between northern Africa and Italy and Spain is so porous that joining Schengen would mean that those crossing the sea to Lampedusa or the Canaries would be in London within a week. We already have a diverse society which is great but that doesn’t mean we have to lose our minds completely and make an rich and tolerant society turn ugly and full of resentments.

It’s a crying shame that so many on the left support the totally crazy and unjustifiable case for open borders because it’s one of the things that keeps them on the extreme margins of society, whilst the bourgeoisie just trample all over us. The wider population (settled immigrants in particular) will never subscribe to open borders, whatever tired old names (“fascist” “nazi” etc) you want to call them. Get used to it and grow up.

@49 – “We already have a diverse society which is great”

No, we do not. We have a very low percentage of immigrants, and outside London 95%+ White British in England is the rule, not the exception.

And right, the left support evidence-based policies, while centralists deride us for it.

What is the big deal about UK borders?? They way they have started treating even millionaires with valid visas entering UK – especially those who have entered and left 100s of times over 20 years (such as myself) – it’s really disgusting to be questioned and treated badly each time we go to the UK. Welcome to the land of paranoid idiots – UK is a laughing stock in front of Europe and the rest of the world – the more free movement UK borders restrict – the more they will be in trouble economically. I know so many rich Indians and other non-EU visitors to the UK who are totally fed up with the border control hassles – we have millions to spend and invest and do business but we are treated like shit upon entering UK – I was detained twice for no reason just last year while getting of a 1st class flight dressed up in £10,000 worth of clothes….do I look like some begger asylum seeker to them flying 1st class and looking like a million bucks?? British are disgusting people – I am sick to the core of even visiting Britain and I hope many others are – once we all take our money elsewhere Britain will be dead as a dead beat country….already they spend more money on suspicion and harassing innocent people in the UK than welcoming anyone. Seriously go to heathrow nowadays and see how they treat visitors on arrival – UK is such an island they still feel under attack from everyone coming over. Ok so if a few thousand people are coming for the wrong reasons – does it mean we all need to suffer? I am sure there are 100 times MORE genuine visitors to UK than a handful of not-so-genuine ones….rather than being more proactive about their own stupid policies and procedures, UKBA chose to harass almost everyone holding a valid visa…and forget about the harassment people face while applying for a visa – they are so stupid they reject people with £10-£20 million in assets for a visit to UK under stupid suspicions. This is a fact – a lot of chinese and wealthy Indians are fed up of UK and spending billions of euros in Europe instead, only if UK was more welcoming and treated people better they would benefit a lot more from it….but I guess their island mentality is never going to go away really….for centuries they feared Europe and still do…so how can they welcome anyone else.