Sir – I note my recent correspondence has furnished two respondents whose views differ to the other comments I have received.

My rationale in both letters was simple – it’s no longer realistic for the UK to accept every ‘refugee’ that decides they want to come here. Indeed, only last week Theresa May stated: “Immigration is costing British workers their jobs and making it impossible to build a cohesive society”.

Objection is taken to me comparing the difference in behaviour of men and women of the war years to those now fleeing their own countries. One aspect of this difference is the conduct of the men currently flocking through Europe.

If they were truly desperate ‘refugees’ one would expect them to register for ‘asylum’ in the first safe country they enter. They do not. They have a sense of entitlement, a list of preferred destinations which they intend to reach by rioting and throwing food away like recalcitrant children, caring little for the needy amongst them.

They defy authority by refusing to register until they reach the country they have determined is the one to best suit their needs.

This behaviour would have been unrecognisable 70 years ago, hence the comparison.

In response to my observation about the number of smartphones being used by the ‘conveniently paperless’ migrants at Calais, Peter Hennessy (Letters, October 7) justifies this by saying smartphones are “cheap and needed to contact and Skype home to families”.

In which case this simply reinforces the view taken by the charity, Human Relief Foundation, which has decided to stop providing aid at Calais because “the vast majority there are economic migrants from a safe country who should have stayed with their families”.

Reason indeed for strengthening our borders against those who seek to access the UK and live here at taxpayers’ expense.

Mike Rose
Norries Drive
Wallingford