Is Britain being overrun by Jihadis posing as refugees?

You may recall that when the Eastern European states joined the EU that the press widely reported that, unlike for non-EU residents, the UK had no powers to stop the free movement of goods and people. The UK has NO OBLIGATION to admit non-EU residents and has strict policies on admitting economic migrants with each case being examined individually on its merits.

There are special processes for dealing with refugees under international law. Refugees are required to apply individually for refugee status and are sometimes held in special detention centres while their claims are being investigated with those whose claims are rejected being deported. Most refugees are from countries that the UK is not actively bombing, or supporting bombing, yet this is how they are treated. How, logically, would we treat refugees from a country we ARE actively bombing, or supporting bombing, when we have the legislation in place to detain them?

Ask any policeman how consistent witness statements are for any incident. Stories about incidents are all over the place with witnesses reporting different numbers of perps, different clothes, height, hair colour, weapons etc. In short, if every witness is telling the same story the police are usually suspicious and suspect collusion. Similarly, any normal event, such as a speech, policy proposal, or change in the law, or benefits etc. is reported wildly differently in the media yet, as far as I can tell, all the media are telling THE SAME STORY about the 'refugee crisis'.

Question. If Poles and Lithuanians came to Britain for a better life without being bombed, would not some innocent Syrians choose a better life in Britain after they had been bombed out of their own country? Where are the media stories about them? They must exist. 

Also, much is made of men of fighting age forming a proportion of the migrants. In conflict zones, young men of fighting age are conscripted against their will to fight for one side or the other (Google 'Ukraine conscription'). I might leave my country if it was being bombed and I would certainly pack my son off pretty sharpish to a safer environment if there was a danger of him being forced to die for someone else's cause, especially ISIS's. So, invasion by Jihadis is not the only possible explanation for the presence of young men in the migrant numbers. Has the media presented any other explanation?

After 7/7 the UK government used peoples' understandable fears to enact legislation such as The Terrorism Act and RIPA to take away our liberties and increase government powers. After all, as they say, "No good disaster should go unexploited". The UK government, who have no obligation to do so whatsoever, are apparently letting in foreign persons from a war zone we are participating in without checks, then, their tame media mouthpieces all trumpet the dire warnings of impending doom. Nothing to see here... right?

The UK has no grounds to attack Syria or to support such an attack and such an attack has little popular support. If the UK population perceive themselves as in danger because they are told that they are being flooded by dangerous Jihadis, any plan to invade Syria and create 'safe zones' where the migrants could be deported safely to WOULD receive popular support. How convenient that these scare stories could change popular opinion in favour of the government's already expressed policy.

Am I the only one who finds all this a little odd?