Skip to main content

Now let me get this right...

Coming through Gatwick yesterday... not a pleasent experience.

Gigantic queues to leave the country? Well, yes.

The latest moronic ukase from the Home Office- we should check everyone leaving the country so that we might just catch the odd illegal who should not have been there in the first place.

So let me get this right: tens, or even hundreds of thousands of people are going to be inconvenienced substantially and at considerable cost to the tax payer.

I ask the "border guard" how many"illegals" they have actually caught.

I will give you a clue... it is a round number.

Yep that is right- nil.

So, no cost benefit analysis, no perception of the real cost at all- just a government determined to make an empty gesture in order to be seen as doing "something" in order to tackle a "problem".

A certain occasional American visitor to our shores has the perfect word for this:

D'oh!!

Comments

Anonymous said…
You may be unaware but part of the LEA response to 7/7 and 21/7 was the imposition of some ‘targeted’ outbound checks. Although implemented with a counter terrorist objective the exercise was considered useful from an immigration and crime perspective as well. So although this may seem like a bolt from the blue there is some data around to enable IND to do a cost benefit analysis.
10:32 am
Cicero said…
That is as maybe- but if no one is actually being caught by this exercise, and thousands are being inconvenienced, then please can we some data to confirm that what appears to be an essentially pointless exercise has some value.
4:39 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more