MADAM - In Britain in late August there were at least three reported instances of groups of foreign nationals gaining unrestricted access to Britain by hiding in freight containers which passed through British North Sea ports.

The most heavily publicised being the cargo of over 30 Afghan asylum seekers/illegal immigrants who landed at Tilbury and were only discovered when they began shouting for help. One of their number had died on the journey.

Two further similar instances were reported in the media that week; one container had reached Somerset before discovery; another was intercepted in Essex.

Both contained at least a dozen individuals and it is reasonable to assume in light of these events that some (many) such cargoes are not intercepted.

It is also fair to assume that attempts are made to enter Britain in this way ie via our North Sea ports, because it has become obvious to the gangs organising this trafficking that the heat-seeking detection equipment and other tools deployed at Dover to combat such illegal immigration is not in place at other ports, thereby allowing ease of entry to Britain.

Imagine a container occupied by ISIS militants gaining access to the UK in this way; they would be supremely fit, fearless and well armed for sure. Then further imagine that they had co-opted say, a couple of comrades form the multitudes of like-minded supporters based in the African continent.

In view of the Islamist militants disregard for their own lives and their renowned suicidal tendencies, those African comrades might well, purposely, be Ebola-infected and included in the freight so as to cause maximum mayhem upon landing amongst whomsoever they wished.

It has been shown that this scenario is far from unlikely.

An apparently healthy passenger from Liberia (apparently healthy) travelled to Texas in late September and his symptoms of Ebola took six days to manifest themselves before requiring medical attention.

In a BBC Radio 4 programme, File on Four, Britain’s remarkable deficiencies in border protection, merely against ill-equipped, potential illegal immigrants, were laid bare.

The programme confirmed that there are insufficient Government funds and insufficient personnel to combat this threat.

There is an irony here; if collectively, the banks hadn’t behaved in such a disreputable and in many cases, criminal, way and caused the global financial crash which necessitated vast sums of public money monies being deployed to bail them out, then there would be ample Government funding available to finance the type of border protection which Britain desperately needs.

Similarly, if politicians and public servants hadn’t behaved in such depraved and criminal ways over recent decades, then the personnel currently engaged in the consequent lengthy investigations of such matters could be aiding that same border protection.

The UK’s security level was raised by a significant and worrying notch in August and European ministers met to discuss the ISIS threat in early September.

Have those actions resulted in measures designed to deter ISIS groups from attempting travel to Britain?

Certainly money has been found for creating bombing missions by the RAF in Iraq, this has been well publicised, but what money has been spent to protect British citizens from the all too real threat of an ISIS/Ebola invasion by ferry?

Roger Gough

Minchinhampton