The Jacqui Smith defence will be much used by Nulabor in future for all manner of crises. It is, after all, the only one they haven't used before. It will become a classic - 'I was investigating the problem so that I could brief Parliament fully!' Right!

And the BBC wouldn't let me say this yesterday. Wonder why?

Ian Jones, London, UK

These incompetents have had vast pay rises in recent years and enjoy pension provisions beyond the wildest dreams of tax-payers. They have the security of a union which funds the Labour Party and employment law biased in their favour.
All they have to do is turn up to work, and it gets too much, well, stress and back-ache can keep them off work for years at our expense.
The penalties DO need to get tougher. Sacking without a reference and penalties on that pension pot should be a minimum, right up to mealy-mouthed Jackie Smith.

Dave, Slough,

I suspect part of the problem is that to do the numbers and do the maths you need to have a starting figure. Blair proved a few years ago he had no idea how many immigrants are in the UK ( he wouldn't even guess the figure to the nearest 1 million when being interviewed by Paxman). The numbers not in doubt though are the amount of tax revenues collected by Gordon Brown over the last ten years. One really has to ask the question that the Tories are starting to sniff at "WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE?". To answer it simply ,not into crime prevention or solving, health services, immigration control, equipment to servicemen, education or public transport.

Edward, London,

Don't you think that the underlying cause of the argument in your office is that your side is looking at the events from a universalist perspective while the other side are seeing it more from a particularist point of view?

In what direction do ones thought patterns move when confronting these events?

Is the immediate concern to assess whether or not they are the result of a structural weakness, and if so to look to ways to improve it?

Or is it considered more appropriate to consider all such events as being discrete, isolated and forgivable acts of negligence or incompetence, not warranting an examination beyond the specific area concerned, always attributable to natural and simply-corrected human error, and never improved by being critically judgmental either of the individuals concerned, or of the system in general.

Universalists see benefit from discussing the relative merits of the two outlooks - particularists that there is nothing to be gained from such discussions.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

If I were an illegal immigrant, working as a security officer, I would be keen to do my job well and keep my nose scrupulously clean, for fear of being sent back where I came from. I might be a better security officer than a native who just drifted into the job. The real risk is that somebody evil has slipped in a dedicated terrorist or two while the Home Office was having an extended flexi-tea-break/afternoon nap.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

A year or so ago, in the course of one of its many scandals , a newspaper ran an article saying how complex the Home Office was. They printed an organisation chart to support this view. My reaction was 'is that ALL it does?'. It looked pretty straightforward compared to, say, running a large bank.

And that just reminded me I shall shortly be experiencing Terminal 3 at Heathrow again, Ugh!

Geoffrey, Sydney,

Thats why I moved to Australia. Enjoy your winter of discontent!

Ben, MANLY, NSW

The right to work should be checked by the employer, there is a lot of advice available and all large companies know exactly what to check for. The security checks are made on criminal background and is totally flawed because only UK records are checked. It isn't easy for people to enter the country illegally but it is easy to overstay after entering perfectly legally as a visitor, especially as there are so many people in this country willing to assist. All countries have the same problem and counting in and out doesn't make any difference just provides the statistic. As in the USA it just ensures that the overstayer doesn't leave at all unless reported or picked up in some other way.

Pip, Horsham, UK

She should not be sacked for the problem itself.

She should of course be sacked for the cover up. Why is this even being discussed? When did cover ups become acceptable? Where is the outrage? Or is everyone too jaded by blair-brown spin?

She had a responsibility to tell everyone and start the house clearing. Sack her and I hope the next person has some (any) integrity and demands it from those who work for them...instead of advice on how to cover something up! Sheesh.

Anyway, lets allow the airlines to control airport security. Private companies don't want any of their planes blown up - bad for business you know...and they'll find efficient ways of managing it than low-doc identity checks!

Simon, Melbourne, Australia

With ref to:

'What makes this still worse is the dreadful time the HO gives to perfectly legal immigrants trying to naturalize. White Zimbabweans, all of whose forebears are British and who share our language and culture, are treated as if they were foreign terrorists.' from Austin from chicago

The HO must have had an off day when they let Peter Hain in(labour front bench mp & sometimes orange) and he's from zimbabwe. Allegedly he's been arrested for digging up the Lords cricket ground as well as being a chief suspect in a bank robbery (quite a while ago). Both occurrences allegedly happened in his student days. I see the HO haven't changed their criteria then.

enoughiseneough, London, England

This should serve as a warning to all HR Directors; they should investigate all new employees (last 5 years) for legality of residency in UK. This mistake by the Home Office shows institutional failure in recruiting, screening and promotion policies. The Directors responsible should be sacked; new policies implemented. Finally the Minister should resign (or be sacked) for her role in the subsequent cover up. Ministers cannot be seen to be unreliable.

Ben Genevieve, Perth, Western Australia

This is the problem when you out-source security to private firms, we can blame the SIA and no doubt the HO will try to lay the blame with them, but once the SIA have issued licences to the security firms they do not check the individuals who those firms employ and being private companies they are more concerned with profit than immigration status. The governments main failing is its eagerness to out-source everything that should be dealt with in-house [usually at an exhortionate cost to the tax-payer], the security staff covering government buildings, airports etc, for obvious reasons should be direct employees of the government and should be vetted by the police/intelligence service.

Les, Southport, England

I am a Frenchman who has been living in this beautiful country for over 10 years and who is a ken observer of British politics.
I hear and see all that is wrong with this country and how poorly it s governed and I agree with it.
What I don't understand is why the country put this government in office not once, not twice, but thrice?
Anyone care to answer that ?
As a side question, I don't understand either how anyone in the right frame of mind can actually believe that this NuLab government is not actually socialist when clearly it has all the hallmarks of a socialist regime (high spending, matched by high taxation, little regard for civil liberties, nanny-state approach....)?
Anyone care to answer that one too.
Fortunately, I was recently naturalised (that's how much a love this country) and can therefore contribute to getting rid of this socialist government at the next election. If only there were enough electors in this state of mind....

Fred, Luton,

When a problem is clearly identified (in this case insufficient security checks) , and the consequences clearly evident, surely this is the first step towards seeking a remedy, towards sorting out the problem to a satisfactory conclusion? Otherwise what are the first and second and third steps to remedy? Or is everybody just going to stamp their feet, throw accusations at each other and behave like spoilt children, (without any responsibility), and just leave all matters unsorted, saying something like 'oops made a mess again!'
A responsible person, surely, is one who learns from one's mistakes and the tries to rectify them. There is no shame in making mistakes, it's normal. But there is shame in not making good the mistake. One would therefore presume responsible Governments would do likewise. However, this is a two way deal. The deal the other way (for onlookers or witnesses) is possibly not to attack or mud sling when a mistake is made or seen. We live in hope!

Tarni, London, UK

What is truly worrying is that if 5000 illigal imigrants are working in security having been vetted then what is the total of illigal imigrants are working in the UK? If the government cannot control a regulated industry what hope for the rest of us ?

steve, Chatham,

As a tangential adjunct to Daniel's comments on the serial incompetence of Home Office, I would point out that there are at leas forty senior grades employed to 'surf the net' and play Minesweeper as they do not possess the skills to, or flatly refuse to, accept posts as Project and/or Programme Managers within one of the major Divisions of the HO.

These people are being paid in excess of £50k plus holidays and gold-plated pensions to sit idle whilst their posts are filled by consultants or interim managers at man-day rates in excess of £600.00.

This undoubtedly repeated throughout HO in particular and HMG Departments in general. Confidentiality/fear prompts anonymity!

An independent consultant, Crewe, UK

Only when a minister is actually assassinated by some illegal immigrant who was given security clearance, will the likes of Ms Smith or any other Labour minister actually wake up and smell the coffee. Until then, the public can go hang themselves for all New Labour cares .

Mike, Alicante, Spain

This incident shows that the whole work of the SIA has little or no value. How can they approve a person as being "fit and proper" when they have no idea of that person's identity or history?
In the Commons yesterday it turned out to be all th fault of the Tories because, during the passage of he bill, they had urged light regulation.But light is different to none.
How many milions have been squandered on an SIA which produces no vald output?

Robert Battye, Halifax, England

You require more identification to obtain your driving licence

C Smith, Burlington, Canada

As a 'frequent flier' I am sick of being treated as guilty before proving myself innocent (an increasingly familiar situation in today's England) and being penalised for wishing to take such hideous items on board a 'plane as suntan lotion and mosquito spray!
This government has proved itself to be slowly destroying both freedom and the political system with it's spin and overbearing control in every aspect of our lives...and it always seems to be the indigenous population that suffers at the sharp end of ever increasing legislation and interference because we exist within the system the system punishes us. I could go on, but what's the point? The politicians are only interested in their careers and their money spinning memoirs and after dinner speaking engagements...the whole bunch of them leave a nasty taste with their half truths and double talk. They should be very afraid because the decent law abiding people of this country are beginning to feel distinctly disenfranchised.......

drapes, Kidderminster, England.

Mr. Gallagher in London, might I suggest that you submit your CV for consideration as head of the Home Office. Head in sand...check; fingers in ears...check, yep, perfectly qualified. We'd hate for the Home Office's work to "seriously suffer" due to their being held accountable for their gross incompetence. One shudders to think.

C Heathcote, Tonbridge,

'Get rid of the mocker, get rid of the mocking,' is an ancient phrase to sum this all up.

There is only one real problem here: bad unaccountable government, whose ethos of acceptable bungling and acceptable deception has spread like poison from the top down.

Get rid.

( I wouldn't fly again unless my life depended on it.)

Joe, Duns, Berwickshire

If only one of these illegal security guards had been a terrorist, he could have chucked a hand grenade into the cabinet meeting room and removed some of the incompetents at a stroke. No doubt Al Qaeda are at pains not to assassinate anyone from our cabinet for fear that we might appoint someone competent in their place.

Everyone already knows that this government is clueless, greedy and incompetent - that's why Brown bottled having an election isn't it?

phil, london, uk

This fiasco demonstrates, that, if the terrorist threat is as bad as we are lead to believe, some politicians would already be dead.

Stanley, Sutton-in-Ashfield, England

Al, Newcastle, writes - "Its not beyond the realms of possibility that one of these 5,000 could work for a terrorist cell and yet by his uniform be trusted by us the general population."

Al, I think you understate it. Even an estimate of at least half a dozen of them belonging to terrorist cells is only a fraction of 1%. I think there are very probably at least half a dozen of them.

Herbert Thornton, Victoria, Canada

I honestly cannot take people seriously when they claim we are being led down the road to an all-controlling Orwellian police state. This government is so incompetent it can't even control who comes into the country. Then it is so blindingly stupid it employs people in key security positions who are not British and can barely speak English. It is obvious that we're heading in the opposite direction of Big Brother. That is, totally anarchy.

Ah well, I'm leaving for a place where they have to at least pay lip-service to the idea of democratic accountability. So long and thanks for all the the ASBO's.

James, Sunderland, England, UK

Austin from Chicago: the most aggressive and silly treatment I have ever experienced was at Chicago O'Hare, where I was treated as a monster/criminal; I got a better deal on entering Lybia, I can tell you. At Chicago O'Hare I was treated as suspicious because I had a perfectly correct and verifiable business visa.
And Hopeful, Middle England: the problem with democracy is that not everyone agrees with you: terrible, isn't it?

Dectora, London, UK/ex Ireland

The British colonisation throughout the world, especially AFRICA, (as im african which is why Im stressing the region), was illegal. Yes.... INDEED you were all illegal immigrants for 100s if not 1000s of years. illegal immigrants are still people, and are probably running from their countries because of life threatening issues etc.. or looking for a better life, and they work hard for it when they come here. They dont just sit around at home and wait for benefits.

Stacy, Birmingham,

I noticed in the discussions surrounding Armistice Day that the Royal British Legion noted the distressingly high number of ex-services personnel that were homeless or living rough.
Perhaps it might be useful for the government to offer jobs like these to those people who have already given years of service to this country rather than employ immigrants, many of whom have broken the law to get here and live here?
Or does loyalty only go one way in this country?

John Whitby, Peterborough, Cambs

It is not overreaction to be appalled by these revelations. What Britain suffers from is too much tolerance and a bland indifference to the ever growing catalogue of government incompetence and the devious behaviour of ministers covering their backs. Time for the indolent British to stop watching 'I'm a Celebrity....,' while 'bladdered'or discussing glimpses of the underwear of the rich and famous, get themselves sober and pay a little more attention to our failing democracy before it is all too late.

david, Uzes, France

Your logic is impeccable. Yes, we should react severely and ensure that the persons responsible are not only sacked but also punished for any negligence whenever these incidents come to light.

Marek, London,

I think you must have 20 years army service to be a beefeater where are all the ex army people you can trust with with YOUR lives pay them a decent wage and we may get some sense of security

paul corrigan, france,

I agree with your view Daniel, However, I do think that you should take into account that this Home Secretary has only been in the job a short time and it seems the laundry list is long. What is necessary is to ensure that there is a proper 'grip' of issues that transends the bureaucracy. The trouble is legally the government is hampered by its own regulation and financially is constrained to employ people that accept the low wages that they can afford give. Any system that does not provide the necessary transparency should be refined until it does, a resignation won't change this fundamental principal.

Mike, Hadleigh, Suffolk

Insane bureaucrats not only make ridiculous rules, they can't enforce them once they're made. So they lie and hide.

What makes this still worse is the dreadful time the HO gives to perfectly legal immigrants trying to naturalize. White Zimbabweans, all of whose forebears are British and who share our language and culture, are treated as if they were foreign terrorists. They are put through the same absurd hoops to prove their Britishness as Poles or Pakistanis, when they should be granted amnesty and passports on the grounds of persecution.

Austin, Chicago, USA

I am English and can not get a job working for the local council because I am born here.

Kim Brown, Bury, Lancashire

I know we are not supposed to pillory civil servants for "doing their job"

BUT doing as instructed by a Minister (even a corrupt and partisan Minister) is one thing - actually advising the Minister on how to perform a cover-up is quite another.

The only way to address this cancer is to sack the civil servants responsible - no pay-off, no "early retirement", just OUT!

Mike Bibby, St ALbans, England -not EU

this argument is well understood in many industries - it is called "Risk" - defined as the result of multiplying probability and consequence - we do this to allow prioritisation of the many conflicting priorities we face. And yes - a low probability but high consequnce event will generally be considered "High Risk" - and so warrant action and drive behaviours

mark, houston,

I see elsewhere in the news today that the Government are announcing other terrorism prevention measures. But how can they do that when they can't even get the basics right? If our airports and other vital assets are guarded by those that are the threat then the lunatics really have taken over the asylum. And it appears that these bogus security people are the ones recruiting others to do the same.
It is utter madness by this Government, if you could call them that.

Bry Barnes, Somerset, Uk

I even had a fleeting feeling of sympathy for Smith when I heard about this. New to the job, strong advice not to spill the beans, and so on. My main thought was that the Home Office has proved itself, over the past few years, to be about as much use to this country as the proverbial chocolate teapot. Perhaps the Home Office should resign on mass; no doubt, there are loads of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, who might conceivably do a better job.

anne, bournemouth,

The world is no longer the safe place it used to be, and our island is no longer as isolated as we used to be. Imagine if one of these immigrants had really been a terrorist, or worse a suicide bomber. What havoc could have been caused. The cabinate decimated by one fanatic. The result would have been a collapse of the rule of law, vigilantes attacking and killing anyone who looke remotely foreign, immigrants ganging together for protection and retaliation, troops on our streets enforcing martial law, curfews and travel restrictions. It's right to get hysterical, the outcome could easily have been so much worse - for all of us.

ron, Milton Keynes, Bucks

It should be noted that, contrary to Daniel Finkelstein's assertion, the SIA does not grant Government security clearance, it licenses private sector security guards. It screwed up, heads should roll at the SIA if anywhere.

One could question whether the Met or any other Government body should take an SIA license as 'good enough', especially for relatively sensitive tasks. indeed a case could arguably be made for requiring full SC clearance for guarding the cars of ministers. But it isn't really a Home Office mistake as such. Does the 'cover up' merit a ministerial scalp? I don't think so.

Stuart, London,

The strangest aspect of this strange affair is that the Home Office seems to think that a credible security check can fail to reveal that someone is an illegal immigrant (and/or working here illegally). Either that or that it is alright for a security check to reveal that someone is working here illegally and then to give that person a licence which enables them to go on doing so. (Which seems to me to be bordering on aiding and abetting a crime.)

anne murphy, London, UK

To be honest I'm not suprised at all by this revelation. In fact, I expect nothing less from this Government.
Actually, I do expect less, a lot less.

**Sit's back, popcorn in hand**

Phill Barlow, The Wirral, England

J Gallagher, plc organisations DO have to tell the stock market (as owners of the business) about every significant mistake that's going to impact on the business. Likewise we, as owners of the government, should also be told about every significant mistake as soon as it's noticed. Only then can pressure be brought to bear to ensure its correction, rather than a vague, out-of-date statement about lessons learnt and the inevitability of mistakes.

No-one said running the country was easy, but leaving it in the hands of incompetents and allowing them to avoid scrutiny isn't the way to go.

Keith Wallis, Wirral,

NO-ONE takes responsibilty under a Labour government, even Mandelson and Blunkett were given numerous 'second chances'. Prescott was another abject failure who even had an extra-marital affair with his diary secretary when he was allegedly deputy prime minister and he kept his job. The culture at the heart of this government is rotten from top to bottom and under gutless Gordon you will only be sacked if you are perceived to be a Blairite.
The lastest fiasco in the Home Office is extremely serious and highlights just how easy it is to enter this country illegally, get a government job with dodgy documents ( no doubt aided by 'positive discrimination' ) and now claim breaches of Human Rights if forced to leave the job and/or this country.
All this is beyond anyone's belief.

Rick, London, England

To Colin Cumner.

Surely you British won't re-elect this bunch of incompetents, will you?

I hope not !! It couldn't happen a 4th time. It just couldn't, could it ?

Hopeful, middle-England, England, UK.

This whole Government is not fit for purpose, it's about time the general public work up to that reality.

Robert Feal-Martinez, South Marston, England

Once again, (yeah I know it's boring) I say to you that Blair scraped the bottom of the barrel for ministerial 'talent' McSporran is left with the scrapings of the scrapings, what on earth do you expect. Would YOU employ these people?

Victor M., Malaga, Spain

The real point of this 'scandel' seems to be missed. How on earth are we vetting people from countries with no records or 'do not exist' in the normal sense. The procees is a sad joke. As we saw last week when people with minor criminal offences from 30+years ago were denied work because of 'form'. They have the misforune to really exist as they were born here. Yet we let immigrants with no proper bona fides work. Yes the mad are running the aslyum now.

Mr angry, london,

The press could do something very useful to bring pressure to bear. Instead of referring to "officials", always name the civil servants involved (except when they are your secret informants, of course). The tradition is that the minister is responsible. But it is a very long time since ministers took responsibility and resigned. Put named officials in the frame, whether senior or junior, and they might start to put their house in order.

Richard, London,

Overreaction - not a bit. Imagine one of these illegals had been guarding Glasgow airport this summer and in collusion with its attackers. How much worse could that attack have been with someone on the inside? Its not beyond the realms of possibility that one of these 5,000 could work for a terrorist cell and yet by his uniform be trusted by us the general population. There in lies the issue and the reason why this is a resignation offence. It is a lives at risk issue, and covering it up because its not good news should ensure a swift return to the backbench. Resignation should go with every major cockup that involves - putting lives at risk, fraud, or lying.

Al, Newcastle,

The reason not to be hysterical is that organisations make mistakes all the time. You cant announce all mistakes all the time or the organisation would be fighting fires all the time and its work would seriously suffer. For example if every company had to make an announcement to the stock market when every significant mistake was made, there would be absolute chaos.
A good organisation sets about correcting their mistakes rapidly and learning from them.
I fault the Home Office in that there have been so many errors in the immigration numbers that they are simply not learning from their mistakes. But then this mistake, would it seems, have been dealt with correctly but for the fact that some politically minded person stole emails and leaked them to the press.

j gallagher, london, uk

I have no hesitation in lining up with those who think it is right to get rid of the incompetent boobies at the top. You might say that the precautionary principle in matters of great magnitude demands that excuses cut little ice; where strictly impartial investigation sets out catastrophic failure, as it does here, off with their heads.

Dr j Findlater, Carnforth,

What a monumental stuff-up by a formerly much-respected Home Office. Yet will heads roll at the top for this fiasco? I very much doubt it; this Government are past masters at ducking and weaving when the proverbial hits the fan. Thus the end result will be a continuance of the sort of ineptitude we've come to expect from New Labour. Surely you British won't re-elect this bunch of incompetents, will you?

Colin Cumner, Adelaide, South Australia

You are 100% right Daniel as it is time that Britain started holding people accountable for errors under their supervision,especialy in the public sector as that is taxpayers money that is being spent. As someone who has spent hours standing in security queues at airports I am not surprised by the recent revelations as on more than one instance the 'security staff' checking me out could hardly speak English. But this unaccounatability seems to be a part of British life but only for those at the top. If ordinary workers screw up they get fired while senior civil servants and captains of industry are rewarded with knighthoods and huge payoffs when they get it wrong. Your colleagues are the sort of people who allow this state of affairs to continue.

George, Glasgow, UK

The problem with the Home Office is that it can use its incompetence as a weapon against ministers. Any time it wants to cause trouble it bollixes up the figures. The lesson is that ministers have to cooperate with the Home Office - that is, leave it do do what it feels like - or the Home Office will pull the carpet from under them.

What should happen is that, from time to time, people in the Home Office are forced to resign, while the minister walks free. Even if it's occasionally unfair, the opposite - always killing the minister - sends the wrong signal to the Home Office.

William McIlhagga, Ilkley,

Over reaction? Under reaction? What is appropriate is some form of reaction and I would suggest that when an organisation is apparently completely incompetent, the appropriate reaction would be to sack those involved in managing it and those lower down the scale who are either unwilling to function at an appropriate level or who cannot be trained to do so.

Steve Evans, Hong Kong,

1. The endemic incompetence of the Home Office makes them a peculiar choice to mastermind the ID cards scheme.

2. They are not alone. As reported in The Times on 1 June 2006*, National Insurance numbers (NINOs) are issued to people even if their identity documents are manifestly forged. This situation was pointed out to the government, according to the article, six years before, i.e. in 2000. And yet it persists. NINOs, like SIA licences, can be mistaken for work permits.

Time to over-react about 2. And it is advisable, following Mr Finkelstein's impeccable logic, to over-react about 1. before we spend GBP20bn+ on a useless scheme.

----------
* http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/public_law/article670429.ece

David Moss, London, UK

Smith had only been in the job for a few days when this problem first crossed her desk. It would have been so easy for her to blow the whistle then and there. The Tories would have huffed and puffed but in reality would have been unable to make anything stick. So why did she display such poor judgement. It is so easy to say that the Home Office had had a hard time of late and they needed more flak like a hole in the head. But politicians prefer to save their own hides and that of their party's rather than that of any department or an individual civil servant. So I wonder whether the magic word was "election". You know Gordon's phantom one. Uncontrolled immigration with unknown numbers with potential illegals doing security jobs.. now that certainly would not guarantee Gordon's place in history. So in true New Labour style they tried to bury it. And they would have succeeded as that phantom election would have been held two weeks ago.
Hysterical overreaction? I wonder.

David West, Templecombe, Somerset

It's the cover up. It's the propensity of this government to lie and spin and deceive and twist the facts that really rankles. The incompetence is what we are coming to expect. But the cover up is what stinks. This same government that wants us to trust it to run ID cards, have a larger and larger DNA database, detain people for 56 days while they find evidence against them and which keeps chipping away at our civil liberties in order to protect us, does not even have the wit to prevent illegal immigrants from doing sensitive security jobs. Then, when it discovers its error, it chooses not to tell us because it would be presentationally difficult. We are being lied to, deceived and simply not consulted on a whole range of issues by a government that is currently lecturing Pakistan about democracy and the constitution. This is the culture of Labour. This is all that they know. So force some of them out until they start playing straight with us or face the consequences.

Paul Owen, birmingham, UK

The problem with our British reserve of not overreacting leaves us with a government that thinks it can do what it likes because no one will even make a whimper. This is an absolutely outrageous situation - your example of airport security is just one reason why we can have no faith in our government telling us we are "safe". This government is completely useless!

Wendy , Oxfordshire,

I think what you are saying here is that for every blunder that struggles into the light, another x are concealed, where x is a large but unknowable number. This seems highly probable as no incompetently led organisation is ever going to admit its incompetence. And with the Home Office, it's not just the leadership that's defective, the whole outfit is hopeless. it's a kind of 'sink estate' among departments. Or is it? Just possibly this sort of thing reflects the government's policy in this area. I hope not but can any organisation be so bad as the Home Office has been for the last decade without someone pulling the levers?

Colin, Shrewsbury,

In what way is forcing a resignation true accountability? A fat cat moves to another (publicy-funded) job, meanwhile the job (still publicly-funded) gets handed to someone else who knows they can always blame their predecessor when they, too, are "forced" to move on. Let's face it, a chimp could run any bureaucracy if supported by good staff and systems, and conversely Napoleon would have trouble running this one. Why not concentrate on fixing staff and systems? Because then we'd be talking about Labour voter's jobs, and that's all that matters. But resignation does nothing, means nothing, will never make anything better.

Delilah, Maryland, USA