Migrants simply walking into Britain

[Johnuk123]

http://news.sky.com/story/1565191/immigrants-held-after-walking-to-folkestone

Two more suspected illegal immigrants have been arrested and charged after walking through the Channel Tunnel to reach Britain.
In August, a 40-year-old suspected illegal immigrant from Sudan also managed to walk through the tunnel, in spite of hundreds of security cameras being installed at the Calais entrance.

This is completely unacceptable, I cannot believe that Eurotunnel is so utterly hopeless and has allowed this to happen.
If you can't make something as enclosed as a tunnel secure then you're simply incompetent, there is no excuse whatsoever.

These 3 could have quite easily planted a bomb, unleashed chemicals, anything at all is possible.

This tunnel should surely be ranked alongside nuclear and military establishments and have 24 hr armed guards because when it is blown up it will be too late.

(I have put this thread in here as it isn't strictly International, or Infrastructure, or General Discussion but a little bit of each.)

 

[Agent_c]

http://news.sky.com/story/1565191/immigrants-held-after-walking-to-folkestone



This is completely unacceptable, I cannot believe that Eurotunnel is so utterly hopeless and has allowed this to happen.
If you can't make something as enclosed as a tunnel secure then you're simply incompetent, there is no excuse whatsoever.

These 3 could have quite easily planted a bomb, unleashed chemicals, anything at all is possible.

This tunnel should surely be ranked alongside nuclear and military establishments and have 24 hr armed guards because when it is blown up it will be too late.

I don't think you can simply blow up the channel tunnel....

....

I also think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about the security of the tunnel. I'm sure it does have 24hr armed guards - although arming the guard isn't that helpful to stop a refugee - force has to match force, and a refugee peacefully walking is offering no force.

How do you make something where there are a lot of vehicle movements (by design) watertight - answer: you can't.

 

[Johnuk123]

I don't think you can simply blow up the channel tunnel....


I also think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about the security of the tunnel. I'm sure it does have 24hr armed guards - although arming the guard isn't that helpful to stop a refugee - force has to match force, and a refugee peacefully walking is offering no force.

How do you make something where there are a lot of vehicle movements (by design) watertight - answer: you can't.

A terrorist would find it incredibly easy to detonate a bomb in a tunnel, if they can fly planes into buildings I don't think a concrete tunnel would be much of a challenge.

Somebody walking through the tunnel is not a refugee they are an illegal immigrant, describing them as peaceful is ridiculous when you don't know what they might have in mind.

ISIS have said time and time again they are going to flood Europe with terrorists disguised as migrants so it's not as if we haven't been warned.

 

[Zoidberg]

...
How do you make something where there are a lot of vehicle movements (by design) watertight - answer: you can't.

I certainly hope that the tunnel is watertight ... well watertight enough so that the pumps can cope with the ingress of water.

 

[LAX54]

A terrorist would find it incredibly easy to detonate a bomb in a tunnel, if they can fly planes into buildings I don't think a concrete tunnel would be much of a challenge.

Somebody walking through the tunnel is not a refugee they are an illegal immigrant, describing them as peaceful is ridiculous when you don't know what they might have in mind.

some might be illegals, some possibly more maybe refugees, just because it's a tunnel does not make that any different to walking across a desert, or in a boat over the sea, its a means to an end.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A terrorist would find it incredibly easy to detonate a bomb in a tunnel, if they can fly planes into buildings I don't think a concrete tunnel would be much of a challenge.

Somebody walking through the tunnel is not a refugee they are an illegal immigrant, describing them as peaceful is ridiculous when you don't know what they might have in mind.

ISIS have said time and time again they are going to flood Europe with terrorists disguised as migrants so it's not as if we haven't been warned.

I should imagine an immigrant smuggling a 40ft articulated lorry under their jumper is going to raise a bit of attention, and is probably going to upset the explosive sniffer dogs and detection equipment the guards are issued with.

Don't get carried away with spy film levels of delusional nonsense, the amount of explosives needed to do significant damage to a structure like the channel tunnel, especially without modelling and specific charge placement, as is used in commercial explosive demolition, would be staggeringly huge.

 

[Jonny]

some might be illegals, some possibly more maybe refugees, just because it's a tunnel does not make that any different to walking across a desert, or in a boat over the sea, its a means to an end.

To be fair, if they do not have the right or permission to be in the UK, then they are illegal immingrants (i.e illegals).

 

[Blamethrower]

some might be illegals, some possibly more maybe refugees, just because it's a tunnel does not make that any different to walking across a desert, or in a boat over the sea, its a means to an end.

They can't be a refugee because there is no war in France, Holland, Belgium, Scotland, Wales or Ireland

I think what the OP is finding it hard to believe is that you can walk the entire tunnel length WITHOUT being stopped and turned back to France.

By the same token as station staff doing nothing when someone is trying to tear my bike out of the rack, the staff "monitoring" the CCTV clearly have no-one to call to pick up said person and / or are not paid / trained to deal with the incident themselves.

If they did, I'm sure it would be a lovely legal minefield.

I think the term is Jobsworth. As long as people say they have CCTV we are supposed to say "well that's just fine then" but as we all know, it isn't

 

[Zoidberg]

...


do please grow up and stop trying to stifle debate with typical lefty mud-slinging.

He has a legitimate concern (as I have pointed out but you clearly couldn't wait to troll)

I was constructing a similar post when I saw yours. No need, now.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

do please grow up and stop trying to stifle debate with typical lefty mud-slinging.

He has a legitimate concern (as I have pointed out but you clearly couldn't wait to troll)

A legitimate concern, maybe, but the way it's phrased and the subsequent posts certainly suggest a certain mentality.

That claim of "ISIS flooding Europe with Terrorists disguised as Migrants" ?

Pretty much the only reporting on that came from the Daily Express and the Daily Mail.

 

[33Hz]

some might be illegals, some possibly more maybe refugees, just because it's a tunnel does not make that any different to walking across a desert, or in a boat over the sea, its a means to an end.

Escaping from the war-torn, poverty stricken state of France?

I have no problem with people getting the hell out of places like Syria, which the West has to take at least some of the blame for allowing to happen, but that is a world away from wanting to come to the UK because a) you speak the language or b) you want to get educated or c) your 3rd cousin 5 times removed is here.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to do any of these things either, but apply for a visa and go through the proper process. Disrupting transport and getting increasingly violent with staff is eroding the very nature of the country that you say you want to get to for genuine reasons. I know plenty of people from Eastern Europe or the Middle East who work in mainland Europe with only their mother tongue and English to go on, and they seam to get along fine.

That certain parts of the left want to equate the refugee crisis in SE Europe with this mess in Calais is part of the reason it hasn't been cleared up. And for the record I despise the Daily Mail and would rather read the Guardian than the Telegraph.

 

[cb a1]

Why on earth would any organisation with the capability of securing a large enough quantity of explosive to take down such a structure rely upon an illegal migrant.

IS (and any other terrorist organisation that we should be worried about) will have hundreds of people who can legally enter the Channel Tunnel.

The difficulty isn't getting into the tunnel, the difficulty is getting into the tunnel with the hundreds of tonnes of explosive you would need to destroy it.

 

[leaffall]

I certainly hope that the tunnel is watertight ... well watertight enough so that the pumps can cope with the ingress of water.

I'm pretty such it is watertight, I read ages ago that the tunnel is deep in "impermeable chalk marl" which is much further underground then the water can seep

 

[misterredmist]

The whole Chunnell fiasco us a sore full of puss for which the French are TOTALLY to blame......they should either be accepting asylum claims or sending the illegals back to where they came from....and in doing so discouraging more illegals

......just wait until all the cables start disappearing

 

[Johnuk123]

A legitimate concern, maybe, but the way it's phrased and the subsequent posts certainly suggest a certain mentality.

That claim of "ISIS flooding Europe with Terrorists disguised as Migrants" ?

Pretty much the only reporting on that came from the Daily Express and the Daily Mail.

Well you got that wrong.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32770390

Islamic State (IS) fighters are being smuggled into Europe by gangs in the Mediterranean, an adviser to the Libyan government has told the BBC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...anning-to-use-Libya-as-gateway-to-Europe.html

Islamic State militants are planning a takeover of Libya as a "gateway" to wage war across the whole of southern Europe, letters written by the group's supporters have revealed.
The jihadists hope to flood the north African state with militiamen from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people trafficking vessels, according to plans seen by Quilliam, the British anti-extremist group.
The fighters would then run amok in southern European cities and also try to attack maritime shipping.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrant-cr...sts-infiltrating-refugee-boats-europe-1519962

Lebanon's education minister Elias Bousaab became the latest in a series of politicians to say that Islamic State (Isis) militants may be infiltrating migrant boats carrying would-be refugees to Europe.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Well you got that wrong.

OK - I accept that.

Though it has to be said the BBC and Telegraph pieces put it in somewhat more measured, qualified and dispassionate terms than "flooding Europe with terrorists disguised as refugees." It's the tone that I was trying to get at. Search for the more emotive terms you used and it's the Mail, the Express, and yes, the International Business Times.

The Telegraph chooses to cite Quilliam, who are themselves a deeply questionable organisation.

 

[Haydn1971]

Don't get carried away with spy film levels of delusional nonsense, the amount of explosives needed to do significant damage to a structure like the channel tunnel, especially without modelling and specific charge placement, as is used in commercial explosive demolition, would be staggeringly huge.

Beat me to it - Hollywood makes these things look so easy ! The failure that occurred to the World Trade Centre was well documented by Dr Frischmann both before and after the Ronan Point Collapse in 1968. Bin Ladan gained his Civil Engineering degree in the late 70's so would be well aware of the science behind his orchestrated attacks in 2001.

Tunnels are altogether different beasts, firstly failures are not generally catastrophic, they are not very visual, so offer little in the way of media tv time coverage unlike a building collapse, destruction of historic sites or an ongoing armed siege. It would take several tonnes of high explosives to provide a catastrophic failure in the Channel Tunnel, at worst, a that a single person or small group of people could do would be to bugger up the tunnel services and prevent journeys for a few weeks.

If you wanted to reap chaos on the UK by destroying infrastructure, you would target several key viaducts on the rail and motorway network with small explosive packs that could be installed in minutes and detonated as soon as the terrorist was at a safe distance - now that would cause chaos for years and cost the economy billions whilst they are repaired !

 

[ComUtoR]

One does not simply walk into England.

 

[Johnuk123]

One does not simply walk into England.

You're saying the whole story is fabricated by Sky News then ?

 

[LAX54]

True, you can swim, fly, small boat, not sure the first one is recommended though !

 

[CharlieSpotted]

One does not simply walk into England.

You're saying the whole story is fabricated by Sky News then ?

*whoosh*

That post was a joke/meme.

The following link may be of use:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/do-you-know-your-internet-memes-1431548

(Number 7)

 

[miami]

True, you can swim, fly, small boat, not sure the first one is recommended though !

I blame the eagles.

If it takes a large cars load of explosives to cause problems to the tunnel, why do we have to go through metal detectors to get on eurostar? Why not to get on the GNER to Edinburgh, or a FGW through the Severn Tunnel? Or get on the tube, especially one going under the Thames?

As mentioned above, small explosive pack on the M5 over the Avon would cause major problems. Same with Barton crossing on the M60. Thelwell and Dartford would be less impacty due to the fact there's two separate crossings. Heck all you need to do is blow you rucksack up on the tube and London's paralysed. You could probably do it with a nice big suitcase, board at Heathrow, in the peak, get off at Green Park forgetting to take your suitcase (noone will notice), it gets set off a minute later and you're long gone.

Heck all it takes is a machine gun, a saturday in late November, and a local mall. Repeat a few days later elsewhere in the country. It would kill christmas trade.

Fortunately the number of people wanting to commit such atrocities is very low.

 

[RepTCTC]

Don't get carried away with spy film levels of delusional nonsense, the amount of explosives needed to do significant damage to a structure like the channel tunnel, especially without modelling and specific charge placement, as is used in commercial explosive demolition, would be staggeringly huge.

Whilst I agree entirely, I would have thought causing a high speed derailment would be well within the means of a moderately enterprising terrorist, and that the results of derailing a car train at full tilt would be pretty messy to say the least thanks to the presence of large, unsecured objects in wide open spaces, combined with a load of people milling about.

Okay, so it's fair to say that there are plenty of places on the rail network where causing a high(er) speed derailment would be even easier and would cause greater chaos in the transport sense, but to my mind there are none so high profile as the Chunnel, and very few as difficult to return to service after the event.

 

[NSEFAN]

If it takes a large cars load of explosives to cause problems to the tunnel, why do we have to go through metal detectors to get on eurostar? Why not to get on the GNER to Edinburgh, or a FGW through the Severn Tunnel? Or get on the tube, especially one going under the Thames?

Security Theatre is what that is. The railways within Britain here have thankfully largely avoided most of this, presumably because the increased journey times from screening are more harmful to the economy than a terrorist attack.

Fortunately the number of people wanting to commit such atrocities is very low.

Some would say this is because the government's intelligence agencies thwart these things before they happen, and we never hear about them. Others might say that most human beings are actually just decent people who mean no harm to others.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Whilst I agree entirely, I would have thought causing a high speed derailment would be well within the means of a moderately enterprising terrorist, and that the results of derailing a car train at full tilt would be pretty messy to say the least thanks to the presence of large, unsecured objects in wide open spaces, combined with a load of people milling about.

Okay, so it's fair to say that there are plenty of places on the rail network where causing a high(er) speed derailment would be even easier and would cause greater chaos in the transport sense, but to my mind there are none so high profile as the Chunnel, and very few as difficult to return to service after the event.

Rolling stock designers model high speed derailments, indeed, there was quite a bit of work done after there was a terrorism attempt on the TGV network and the general consensus is it's a low value terrorism target, as you need to rely on a derailment, the rolling stock rolling or failing to remain upright, and people onboard sustaining life ending injuries.

Whilst the terrorist may be able to guarantee some sort of derailment, he/she can't guarantee the rolling stock won't re-rail itself, nor can they guarantee the train won't run along in the dirt for a half mile bob upright and the passengers will be completely unharmed.

It's a lot of work for the potential of absolutely no reward at all.

If you're a terrorist, why not just detonate a bomb on a packed train in a packed station one night when, say, London Bridge descends into anarchy ? You'll probably kill more in the resulting stampede than you would with the bomb.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I blame the eagles.

I think that is a bit unkind. I never really liked their rendition of "Hotel California", but I would never blame them for any plot against the Channel Tunnel...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rolling stock designers model high speed derailments, indeed, there was quite a bit of work done after there was a terrorism attempt on the TGV network and the general consensus is it's a low value terrorism target, as you need to rely on a derailment, the rolling stock rolling or failing to remain upright, and people onboard sustaining life ending injuries.

Whilst the terrorist may be able to guarantee some sort of derailment, he/she can't guarantee the rolling stock won't re-rail itself, nor can they guarantee the train won't run along in the dirt for a half mile bob upright and the passengers will be completely unharmed. It's a lot of work for the potential of absolutely no reward at all. If you're a terrorist, why not just detonate a bomb on a packed train in a packed station one night when, say, London Bridge descends into anarchy ? You'll probably kill more in the resulting stampede than you would with the bomb.

Let us not forget the Madrid train bombings on four trains around Atocha station in 2004 that led to 191 deaths and over 1,800 injuries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fortunately the number of people wanting to commit such atrocities is very low.

Indeed so, but that very low number that you refer to is reflected in the four home-grown terrorists who caused so much devastation ten years ago on the London transport network.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Let us not forget the Madrid train bombings on four trains around Atocha station in 2004 that led to 191 deaths and over 1,800 injuries.

Quite, but the point about High Speed Derailment stands, I think. Grayrigg, whilst dramatic and of course tragic for the old lady who passed away, shows just how well modern trains cope with high speed derailments.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The consequences of a bomb in the tunnel wouldn't need to be destructive to the tunnel itself to cause significant loss of life. We saw that in London; 26 people were killed by a relatively small bomb on the Piccadilly Line yet the tunnel was re-opened less than a month later.

There are real questions to be asked about how people are getting into the secure part of the tunnel without being stopped. That's a big concern.

I'm not sure* why johnuk is choosing to make this about "illegals", as though only brown people are capable of bombing something. The issue is that people are getting into the secure part of the tunnel, not about their nationality or whether they are a refugee or not.

 

[Kentish Paul]

I'm pretty such it is watertight, I read ages ago that the tunnel is deep in "impermeable chalk marl" which is much further underground then the water can seep

Agreed it is watertight. It is quite a way below the seabed. As to bombproof it was known when I worked on the project (for 5 years) that this had been thought of and catered for.

 

[Zoidberg]

Agreed it is watertight. It is quite a way below the seabed. As to bombproof it was known when I worked on the project (for 5 years) that this had been thought of and catered for.

Thanks to you and leaffall for the assurances of the watertightness.

And I would have been very surprised to learn that measures to protect this part of our Critical National Infrastructure had not been designed in.