This is transparently ludicrous rubbish – why use illegal images when they could use wedding photos or LOLcats? – and it defies rational thought that the Home Office spinmeisters could think this one would pass uncommented.
See the reader comments on the original Times story – they all think it’s idiocy too.
I wrote a blog rant on it – http://tiny.cc/QAm8c – but I’m not sure it’s clear it’s a parody of an actual ridiculous assertion.
]]>