Madam,

Like many of my Friends and Relatives I feel very strongly that the government’s decision to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda as a means of deterring the people traffickers is very wrong.Surely the best solution is to concentrate our efforts on blocking the travellers/boats before they set sail.

Could we not use a combination of Drone Surveillance backed up by Fast Response Vehicles to stop the launching of the trafficking craft on the most vulnerable stretch’s of the French Beaches….? I suggest that the vehicles are manned by two border patrol officers…one employed by English Border Patrol and the other a French officer….this would demonstrate a joint,coordinated response to the problem.

The officers would either confiscate the craft or render it unsuitable to launch and they would arrest the traffickers.

This level of surveillance would not need to be 24/7 as the launching of the craft is weather/ sea condition dependent.

In addition a system of intelligence infiltrating the immigrant camps would surely be a way of identifying who the people traffickers are and enable arrests to be made.

The above proposal eliminates the problem of out at sea surveillance and immigrant management once they are brought to our shores with a huge saving in costs.

More importantly it is also a lot safer for the people concerned and would stop the tragic loss of life that we are regularly witnessing.

I also question the initial down payment of £120 million to the Rwandan government.I question whether or not all of these funds will be used appropriately.

Pritti Patel I believe over estimates the support she feels the British have for her misguided proposal.

I do feel that the government appears to be washing its hands of the issues surrounding immigration management and outsourcing it to Rwanda is not a fair and correct solution.

Government efforts in cooperation with the French should be concentrated on eradicating the people traffickers and their craft on the French beaches and not waiting until the people arrive on our shores.

Alan Adamson

 

Madam,

It seems to me that marketing companies have conned people by prefixing products with the word SMART which is an Americanism for clever but I like the English definition which means a mild stinging pain as that's what most things labelled "smart" actually cause.

What is smart about a phone that allows an imported ap to gather information from your phone and pass it to scammers to allow them to empty your bank account or allows you to click on to a link that again allows scammers to gain personal information.

What is smart about a phone that you have to take security precautions and be alert every time you open a text message.

I have a simple mobile phone that allows me to call or text and I am unable to click on a text that has a link so scammers can't access personal information, I call that smart, I am protected from scammers.

Smart meters, they do not save you money, what saves you money is switching things off or turning the thermostat down so common sense saves you money not smart meters.

Smart meters have also caused customers problems changing suppliers and when mobile networks phase out 3G current smart meters will not work, I don't have a smart meter so I do not have any problems and I know how to save on energy consumption.

The Mercedes 2 person Smart car costs more than most small 5 door hatchbacks and its got no boot space and it only gets you from A to B like any other vehicle so what is smart about having one.

Companies should not be allowed to use the word Smart in the product name the public will decide if it is smart, a smart phone should be called a mobile mini computer, a smart meter should be called an electronic metering transmitter and a smart car is just a very small car.

Paul Dakin