Yahoo Geocities being shut down Mike Jeffreys and 2CC Parton ways

Border surveillance “effective”: just not by the dictionary definition

April 25th, 2009 at 08:15pm

Another boat load of asylum seekers has been intercepted of the West Australian coast, and Federal Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus is delighted:

Mr Debus said the successful interception demonstrated the effectiveness of Border Protection Command’s surveillance.

“Our surveillance is strong and targeted and officers from Customs and Border Protection and the Royal Australian Navy are working together to protect Australia from unauthorised arrivals.

Great, three groups of people monitoring our borders and swooping on the people they spot coming near. I would therefore assume that one of these groups spotted the illegal boat…

An oil rig tender vessel had tipped off the Customs and Border Protection hotline about the vessel.

The sighting was then confirmed by a Customs and Border Protection Command Dash 8 aircraft.

Three groups of people, getting paid a bucketload of taxpayer dollars, and it’s an oil rig tender vessel which spots the illegal boat? If this is what Mr. Debus calls effective, perhaps he should check his dictionary:

a. Having an intended or expected effect.

Perhaps it is effective…if Mr. Debus expects boat to be spotted by third parties rather than the people who are being paid to conduct the surveillance.

It’s no wonder that the boats are flooding in to Australian territory with people like Bob Debus in charge of our border security.

(Apparently using the words “flood” and “boat” in the same sentence makes me part of the “nutjobosphere”…that’s fine by me, because it doesn’t change the fact that I’m right!)


Entry Filed under: General News,Samuel's Editorials

Print This Post Print This Post


  • 1. legshagger  |  April 26th, 2009 at 12:01 am

    Yeah Samuel …. you cloistered living in your parents’ place in Reid has a supreme view of the world! (Just look at your Melbourne Cup and election tips). Meanwhile, I have absolutely no problem with boat people landing, providing they don’t pollute the world further with inane blogs!

  • 2. Samuel  |  April 26th, 2009 at 12:06 am

    Yeah well I do have a problem with boat people. We have a legal procedure in place for immigration…if they won’t follow it, they should be locked up or sent back from whence they came at their own expense.

    Only genuine refugees (which I define as people who would be at imminent risk of being killed or tortured illegally in their home country) should be granted entry to the country without going through the usual visa process.

  • 3. legshagger  |  April 26th, 2009 at 12:18 am

    I think Ashmore Reef is a great place for you! And (name removed)!

  • 4. Samuel  |  April 26th, 2009 at 12:34 am

    Really? Please do explain why you think I would be better accommodated at Ashmore Reef…I am most intrigued.

  • 5. legshagger  |  April 26th, 2009 at 12:55 am

    Censorship still reigns supreme I see! Ashmore Reef would be a great place for you and (name removed) because there’s not internet access!

    Update: I thought I’d get in early and edit my own post before Samuel pouned!
    /End update

  • 6. Samuel  |  April 26th, 2009 at 1:12 am

    Ah, I see, very droll.

    As for censorship…you’ve been warned before about scurrilous remarks about other contributors to this blog. I’m fair game for the most part, others generally are not…but you already knew that and just wrote the name for the fun of it didn’t you?

    If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to watch this week’s second episode of The Bill now.

  • 7. legshagger  |  April 26th, 2009 at 1:20 am

    You’re excused … and I promised never. ever to mention (name removed) ever again!

    Update: Send us a post card from Ashmore Reef./End update

  • 8. legshagger  |  April 26th, 2009 at 1:46 am

    I’m sorry …. I desist from all my naughtiness. I have been drinking too much cough syrup laced with sugar cubes. Reid is the perfect place for you, and I pledge never, ever to mention (name removed) again. Can we be friends?

  • 9. Samuel  |  April 26th, 2009 at 2:49 am

    Haha, yep sure, we can be friends.

    It has felt like I haven’t had an Internet connection for the last couple weeks due to my connection being slowed after I exceeded my download quota for the first time ever, but thankfully it returns to normal later today.

    I’m off for a walk now and intend on being back online shortly after 6am. I have something to write which hinges partially on an event which will occur just after 6am.


April 2009

Most Recent Posts


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in