Good Little Taxpayers Shouldn't Ask Questions

Companies acting as hired thugs for the Home Office deserve all possible protection from public scrutiny in case other companies use the information to compete with them, according to a minion of Mad Tessie May. Some muesli-munching terrorist sympathisers have been asking a lot of impertinent questions about how the Home Office's corporate boot-boys are penalised when things go wrong at wog disposal centres. Naturally, given the profit motive and the expendability of the merchandise, the whole idea that, for example, a detainee self-detrimentation is an instance of things going wrong is really rather quaint; but anyway it transpires that a fine of £10,000 may be levied in particularly blatant cases. It remains unclear how much of the money is extracted from ill-trained, inexperienced and inadequate staff, and how much of it goes in compensation to the victim's relatives. The Home Office is still refusing to release further information on financial penalties in case companies factor them into their bids, thus proving once again that lack of transparency is not an argument against privatising services. The Home Office also maintains that disclosing to the public any information about how public services are run tends to prejudice the legitimate democratic interests, viz. the commercial interests, of the Ministry for Profitable Incarceration, and that such shady practices will therefore never be tolerated among the minions of Mad Tessie May.