[simonh]

I don't think that's a reasonable question, not all scammers are Nigerian. Some are based in the UK, others in Europe. Also the EU had data sharing agreements and collaboration outreach with police forces all over the world that we also lost access to.

That's one of the complications with our data sharing with the EU; they have agreements to share data with non-EU countries on the basis that their data is only shared within the EU, which we are now not. Therefore the EU can't grant us access to databases containing that data until we/they have permission from these other countries. We will, and are sorting it out but it's going to take time. Brexit was always going to come with some costs, that should be obvious even if you think on balance it was the right choice, and this is one of them.

[mdp2021]

The poster forgot the bunny quotes ("so-to-say") in «stereotypical "Nigerian scammer"», but added the term 'stereotypical' to lead you there, and the content was clear: certainly the poster did not express or suggest that «scammers are Nigerian». "Scotch tape" is from Minnesota, and the Scots are probably not that disturbed from the underlying idea of "Careful with that glue, Eugene! "Be a Scot", don't waste it". The Nigerian princes happened, terminology spawned, Nigeria has presumably not yet demanded that those scams should be called with Greek letters. Because we are not fools and we know losing one's head is not decapitation, and losing one's mind is not misplacing it on the wrong table. You know what's Eugene even if no-one's called Eugene, and if you don't you can get it's a cultural reference.

[tremon]

The intended interpretation is (Nigerian scam)mer, not (Nigerian) scammer; the scammers aren't Nigerian, the scam is. It refers to one of the earliest well-known forms of a type of e-mail scam: "Hello, I'm a Nigerian prince with a lots of funds but I can't access it, please send me $amount so I can get access and I will return it ten-fold".

[Chris2048]

> I don't think that's a reasonable question, not all scammers are Nigerian.

Than a non-sequitur, why would it matter? superbugs that originate in hospitals can escape and cause harm beyond a hospice; and if certain locales, Nigeria being the famous example of, are harder to touch, then those places will be selected-for for by scammers.

Consider that certain places are harder to police than others (which is basically the whole premise of this thread in the first place - than the EU is better policed than the UK); or that criminal operations could operate somewhere other then their place-of-origin.

> Some are based in the UK, others in Europe.

And if the European ones are more likely to get caught, there will be fewer of them, and a lot of those that remain won't operate locally.

> Also the EU had data sharing agreements and collaboration outreach

I don't doubt data-sharing is more difficult, I question if it makes any (long term) difference to remote (i.e. over the phone, or email) scams.

The question is how does that data relate to catching scammers who trivially outsource from elsewhere? Does the EU have any data on which EU companies run scams out of Nigeria[*0]? Even if the EU has a data-sharing agreement with Nigeria, I doubt the government even keeps tabs on the scammers. Plus, you can always move to wherever there isn't such a data-sharing agreement e.g. somewhere semi-hostile/antagonistic to Europe.

[0] SIDENOTE: I would mention somewhere other than Nigeria, so not as to seem to "pick on" the place, except - 1) Nigeria is established as famous for scams already, b) that would only make me more susceptible to downvotes from people triggered by me mentioning their somewhere-they-hold-dear in a negative light.

[denton-scratch]

> not all scammers are Nigerian

Of course not; but "stereotypical" ones are definitely Nigerian.