Yes, I think Charles Clarke must inevitably resign but that is nowhere near enough for such a spectacularly poor performance by the system as a whole. I sincerely hope that this Government and its departments work very hard now to eradicate foreign criminals for good. It is high time that the basic rights of the ordinary people of this country were put first instead of being trampled on and that Government not only listens to what we want but acts upon it. Very poor show indeed. Labour loses my vote for certain.
Paul Eccles, ReadingLet me absolutely clear about this. Mr Clarke's refusal to resign is political cowardice of the first order. If just one citizen of this country is harmed in any way by this debacle that harm will be on Mr Clarke's head. If he isn't man enough to do the decent thing, in the eyes of the people his political career will be over. Michael Rigby, Chorley
Maybe people in local government employment should be as accountable as Mr Clarke. the deportation rule is already there and they should do their job. The director of a company does not sack himself if the workers do not do their job. He sacks the workers. The people who work in the Home Office should take the can for this blunder. Stand up and take responsibility for your failures. Paul Leader, King's Lynn
Of course Clarke should go--but he won´t. Resign is a dirty word today. The attitude of both Clarke and Blair makes a mockery of public trust. Ministers have no incentive to carry out their job properly: whether they are a success or a disaster they know they can stay. In no other area of working life would such behaviour be tolerated. It´s an absolute disgrace and reflects the completely degenerate state of politics in Britain. Francis Tuttle, Madrid, Spain
What a lot of hot air. Why is everyone ignoring the facts and blaming The Home Secretary? Incompetent and/or corrupt officials have failed in their job. It's rarely the best course of action to force the scapegoat to resign. Tony Thorn, London
Mr Charles Clarke should be promoted to be our next EU Commissioner. Such a post is considered to be the absolute nadir of a political career and would be most appropriate in his case - and well deserved. Geoffrey Smith, Droylsden
I find it remarkable that civil servants seem to feel comfortable that they be given an opportunity to sort out a mess that they previously created. Where is it written that politicians are indispensible? I do respect that Charles Clarke has accepted that he is accountable for the deportation blunder. But to then ask for a period of time to sort the mess out, is simply ludicrous. If the Home Office was a privately run organisation, that was accountable to its shareholders, he would not and should not be given any reprieve by its shareholders. A blunder of this scale would call into doubt the ability and rationale for keeping someone in office. Tony Blair should take a leaf from Alan Sugar's book, "Charles Clarke - you're fired!" Alasdair Rankin, Edinburgh
Charles Clarke thought he was being clever sneaking the ID cards bill through and brow-beating the House of Lords. He is a tyrant and must go. What more damage will he do? He does not even know the meaning of the word voluntary as opposed to compulsory. Nina Steggar, Yarm
Though it's a truism that politicians have no honour, why should Charles Clarke resign in this case? He only inhabits his position for a limited period and cannot and does not employ or choose his staff, they are "issued" from an already open and soiled box. It is impossible for him to sack the whole of his department. Presumably civil servants are paid a salary and can and are expected think for themselves, even at the lowest grade whole layers of staff must have known or suspected. Why not do something unique in this case and dismiss guilty civil servants as they would do in the private sector and it would also encourger les autres. John Francis, Villemagne l'Argentiere, France
We did have a perfectly good Home Secretary, a man with backbone and the mettle to make hard decisions. Where is David Blunkett now? If Blair can forgive Prescott for his indiscretions, why not him? Paul Croft, Scunthorpe
Yes, Charles Clarke should resign but not as yet. Resigning is a very easy option for ministers because though they cease to be ministers they still keep their position as an MP and then 12 months later find their way back into the Cabinet without resolving the mess they made in the first place. Clarke should be made to resolve the mess he has claimed responsibility for, before leaving. During this period of, say, six months he should not have the title or the salary of a minister but be solely responsible for sorting out the mess. Vinay Mehra, Purley
It would be useful for Clarke or his successor to look closely at the French system for deporting foreigners found guilty of a crime in France. Sometimes it appears, from reading local newspapers, that the feet of the criminals barely touch the ground on their way out of the country. Nicolas Sarkozy, the equivalent of the British Home Secretary, has a new piece of legislation on its way, which requires, among other things, that identity cards should be checked at any time and place, including in hospitals. Can Britain not produce a politician with sufficient backbone to act in this manner? Jane Berry, Antibes, France
Were Charles Clarke to go, nothing would have been solved. Reading Camilla Cavendish’s article, it would seem the problem has been with us for a long time. If embarkation controls were scrapped in 1988, and there has been no effective record of who is in the country, then that predates Blair’s Premiership by some nine years. If the 1951 Refugee Convention permits criminals to claim asylum even after conviction, if, as the Belmarsh saga demonstrates, we are unable to rid ourselves of even the most obvious undesirables, then the problems are far more deep rooted. If there are no controls as to who is in the country, then that would speak for ID cards. They might not prove the ultimate panacea, but would certainly be a step in the right direction, making it that much harder for undesirables simply to disappear. And as the Belmarsh saga suggests, it must be possible for people whose presence in the UK is deemed detrimental to be removed. But all these measures, require a national consensus, also among the chattering classes, that certain elementary standards and steps are required to ensure the public’s safety. If even the most brazen criminal or terrorist can come unhindered to the UK, then this is a job for politics as a whole, not for one single minister. Tom Beck, Trowbridge
