Where’s Captain Mainwaring when you need him? Walmington-on-Sea is facing a new invasion for his Dad’s Army platoon to repel - hordes of immigrants.
Hordes? Well, the count so far is 35 Albanians, but you never know. It could be the start of a new trend. Thousands may follow. Indeed, for years, thousands may have sailed in undetected. So Something Must Be Done.
Listen to the advice from the national press: We must have far more ships on permanent patrol around Britain’s waters (The Times). We must do more to protect our maritime borders (Daily Telegraph). We must police Britain’s undefended coast (Daily Express). We must act now to stop people in rickety boats setting a course for the UK (Daily Mirror).
And here is i’s hyperbolic front page on Tuesday: “Wide open: warning on Britain’s coastline. People smugglers free to bring in migrants by sea, say naval chiefs. Coasts are facing ‘biggest ever onslaught’ this summer. Call for warship to be deployed after rescue in English Channel.”
Don’t panic! Don’t panic! This is just another example of Fleet Street over-reaction, transforming a couple of minor incidents into a major threat.
Can the papers be serious? I’m afraid so. In their response to the rescue of people from an inflatable boat in the Channel, some editors have clearly exaggerated the so-called “threat”. Stupid boys!
We might expect such nonsense from rightwing titles campaigning for Brexit in the EU referendum, but the Labour-supporting Mirror and the supposedly neutral i have taken a similar alarmist line.
The Mirror’s spread, “Don’t let it happen here”, equated the seaborne tragedies in the Mediterrean with the two Channel incidents. Its editorial referred to the death last September of three-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi and argued that “we face the awful prospect of a similar tragedy on our own shores.”
It amounted to a “crisis” requiring the “stepping up of deterrence patrols from our pared-back Navy... to prevent people from packing into rickety boats and setting a course for the UK.”
Surely, it concluded in its Telegraph-style polemic, “this would be a proper use of our £12bn overseas aid budget.”
So what did the real Telegraph have to say? Pull up the drawbridges at every port and harbour. Fix the bayonets. Fight them on the beaches. Sorry, I made that bit up. Here’s what it did say:
“This newspaper has... repeatedly highlighted concerns about Britain’s border security and called for improvements...
Even with the additional resources that will be given to maritime patrols... the border force’s ability to patrol the seas around Britain will be limited at best... still more has to be done.
The need for even greater action is being very visibly demonstrated in the English Channel this week, as would-be migrants attempt clandestine crossings...
The fact that these desperate people are even in a position to attempt such crossings says something about the European Union and its handling of migration.
Arguably, EU rules should mean that illegal migrants should be stopped and processed long before they reach the Channel... Regardless of the result of the referendum, more will have to be done to protect Britain’s borders.”
And the Times nodded vigorously in agreement. “From Dorset to Norfolk, and even farther afield, Britain’s long shoreline appears under threat,” it said.
Officials had plenty of warning that a new migrant route into Britain might open up. It was obvious that tightened security at Eurotunnel and at the main ferry ports would mean smugglers looking for other ways to bring migrants ashore.
Despite warnings, the home office was complacent. So, said the Times, “it is hardly surprising that people traffickers now see Britain as an easy target.” It continued (hinting at the need for Dad’s Army vigilance):
“All along Britain’s coastline there are beaches that are relatively quiet and offer a safe landing. And two generations have passed since local people were urged to keep a wartime watch on the seas.”
It called for “a serious response”, meaning “far more ships on permanent patrol around Britain’s waters.”
The Express raises another terrifying prospect: incursions of migrants who will surely evade even the most sensitive radar.
“Some people can even swim across the Channel”, it said. “Desperate people will do anything to get into Britain... So the temptation to make the short journey from France to England will prove irresistible.”
But it does concede that “the combination of currents and congestion make the crossing perilous.”
If you prefer a sense of proportion, turn instead to Alan Travis’s Guardian analysis. He concluded: “The two boatloads of Albanians and the alleged British people smugglers with them might yet prove the start of a trend, but the front page headlines over them has more to do with the referendum campaign rhetoric than with the debate over changing priorities of border security.”
Quite. See it as part of the fear generated by so many contributors to the referendum debate, whether politicians or editors. The truth? Don’t tell ‘em, Pike.
