Should Theresa May resign.

[Gromit]

I have often on AB laughed off the idea we have an 'Open Door' immigration policy, but apparently, under this shower of a Government, that is exactly what has been happening. Border control have not been bothering to check people entering the country, and the Home Secretary has no idea how many illegals have entered, or if any of them are dangerous.

http://www.telegraph....-border-controls.html

How is it possible that the Home Secretary can keep her job when this sorry state of affairs happened on her watch? Time for her to do the honourable thing and resign?

[emmie]

seeing how labour managed to let over 3 million in without so much as a by your leave, this is small potatoes in comparison.

[jno]

how do you know how many potatoes there are, em? Even May doesn't know. Could you send her the figures?

[jackthehat]

I was puzzled yesterday that the howling seemed to rise a level when it was discovered that Theresa May couldn't say how many illegals had entered the country.........

How on earth can she be expected to provide figures when the Border Control Agents were simply waiving people through without checking?

I understand that she admitted that she had asked for protocols to be 'loosened' but that someone in the Border Agency had taken that instruction and stretched it far beyond the her instructions.

[jake-the-peg]

Not if what she says is true.

If she explicitly limited her experiment - sorry - pilot to EU as she says then her major crime is not finding out sooner and that's hardly a resigning matter.

However if it transpires that she gave a "nod and a wink" to relax the controls further then she's set up a senior civil servant to take the blame for her, and mis-led parliament in which case her position would be completely untenable.

Haven't seen any evidence of that yet but I'm sure the Mail is getting ready

[emmie]

http://www.migrationw...n-UK-report_Print.pdf

[Kayless]

No She should not resign. She's explained the c0ckup and been honest about not knowing the amount of people let in. Even if we did know I doubt it would get anywhere near the millions let in by Noo Labour's border non-policy.

[Gromit]

Em10.
At least under Labour illegal immigrants had to make some effort like hanging on to hurtling EuroTunnel trains or packed like sardines in the floor of a lorry. Now they are just waived through passport control.

They got elected by saying they would be tough on illegal imigration. Another U-turn.

[jno]

'The leaked UKBA interim operational instruction dated 28 July 2011, which is believed have been signed off by Home Office ministers, sets out the agreed measures then clearly states: "If, for whatever reason, it is considered necessary to take further measures, beyond those listed above, local managers must escalate to the Border Force Duty Director to seek authority for their proposed action." '

It's the "for whatever reason" bit that seems to be causing the trouble. May says it was just meant to apply when airports were overcrowded. But of course it doesn't say this. (And anyway, would bin Laden have tried to arrive at a quiet time to make sure his papers could be properly checked?)

[riptide]

I thought the tories would be tough on immigration, not like Labour who were useless. We will sink soon if we let anymore in. We have to ask ourselves why are they all trying to get here? We should adopt the policies of Australia, oh no of course we cannot because we are in the EU and they tell us what to do!!!!

[jake-the-peg]

That's rather the point ripide

It's all the non-EU entrants they stopped checking

Yemanis, Afghans, Somalis, Iraqis

No risk there then

[starone]

And the grapevine soon passes the news around how easy it is to get in here. Consequently even more come here.

[OrdsallSi]

// It's all the non-EU entrants they stopped checking //

If they do not check how do they know what nationality they are when they wave them through.

[ludwig]

Jake's first post is right. If what she says is true then no.

However, if she's lying, and she specifically told them to let in as many terrorists and illegal immigrants as they could find, then that would be much more serious. I haven't seen any evidence of that though.

[ludwig]

Similarly if it comes to light that she took part in the recent riots and nicked a big telly from Curry's she should definately go. I haven't seen any evidence of that either, let's wait and see, but if the facts are just as she stated - I'd have to say no.

[anneasquith]

yes

[Davethedog]

But it saved money. Don't have to employ so many people now.

Sacking Teresa May wouldn't achieve a lot, However as we can see a scapegoat has been put up lets scream and shout at him until the papers make us believe it was all his fault. Let us also remember to get huge headlines wondering if he should be allowed his pension.

The cost of everything the value of nothing.

[rov1100]

I must admit I was confused when one of the first cuts announced by the Tories was a reduction in staff of the Border Agency. With an increasing problem you would think this area was immune from cuts.

When MPs are still buying top of the range IT equipment against expenses and Cameron spent the max allowed for redecorating No 11 recently its seems their priorities are a bit warped.

[anotheoldgit]

jake-the-peg

/// Haven't seen any evidence of that yet but I'm sure the Mail is getting ready ///

I am sure they won't be on their own, except of course for the Guardian and the BBC.

Isn't this 'Mail Bashing' wearing a little thin now? If you and others like you hate the Daily Mail so much, why don't you all throw up a tent outside it's offices, and earn yourself a cheap holiday?

[anotheoldgit]

/// Home Secretary Theresa May today admitted the Border Agency has 'endemic' problems but refused to resign, insisting a pilot scheme to relax border controls did not put security at risk.///

Now how can she possibly know that, if she doesn't know how many or who has been let in?

This incidentally was taken from the Daily Mail report, who are (contrary to common belief), totally unbiased in these matters.

http://i.dailymail.co...00578-843_306x371.jpg

Surely being a 'Right-Wing' publication, they should learn to 'play down' such matters?

Perhaps they should follow The Guardian, they are so good at that.