There are no political points to be scored

BORDER Force was set up by Tony Blair to be an independent agency at arms length from the government, hoping it would be out of reach and sight of the far left.

They began destroying documentation in their keeping, without consultation and ignoring advice not to do so.

They first served notices on the Windrush generation in 2009, when Labour was in power, and Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary.

He claims to know nothing about any of it?

Liam Byrne, the Labour immigration minister advised (at the time), that it was Labours’ intention to create a hostile environment for illegal migrants, and introduced targets for the deportation of them.

When Theresa May became Home Secretary, she did not approve of the way Border Force was operating, and brought it into the Home Office under Whitehall control.

However, hands on manage- ment by civil servants in the department suffered amputation, because, (I believe) Whitehall mandarins did not want to dirty their hands(?) and Border Force was allowed to carry on regardless.

What has followed is a civil service cock up, of some proportion, for which no bureaucrat will be the subject of any disciplinary action.

In reality there are no political points to be scored.

Labour’s (present) position, to argue that is all down to the Tories, does not follow the evidence trail, or reality of the issue and it’s longevity, reaching back to them.

Which is why they are demanding an enquiry going back and stopping at when Theresa May became Home secretary, conveniently, airbrushing themselves out of the scenario, by only going back to 2010. They add that anyone who does not support this is a racist.

The whole debacle is now being used by Labour, the Lib/ Dems, and SNP to brow beat the government, and people to accept an “open door” immigration policy, which fits into Jeremy Corbyn’s agenda.

I see nothing wrong with an hostile environment for ILLEGAL migrants, taking into account the vile activities of people trafficking, slavery, and prostitution it brings with it.

Also the realisation, that we just can’t deal with the numbers that would flow from an open door policy, regardless of even if you threw the treasury at it.

The only problem I have with targets is that the civil service uses it as just that, and once achieved sits back until the next accounting period.

It is said that standing shoulder to shoulder you could get the population of China on the Isle of Wight,

I just wish the “do gooders” would realise that this is a metaphoric expression, and not an objective.

S. P. Vickers, by email