Steve Moxon blog

The big myth of 'trafficked' prostitution exposed in a suppressed report

2009-10-22T09:47:00.001+01:00

Not even a single 'trafficked' women and not even a single 'trafficker' was found in a six-month multi-agency campaign across all police forces led by the 'Human Trafficking Centre' (based here in Sheffield).

Its internal report is "restricted" but was obtained by The Guardian and forms the basis of an exposé in the paper [see below].

This is conclusive evidence that the hysteria re prostitution is just that.

All of the research, and all evidence from prostitutes' groups from Britain and around the world, shows that 'trafficking' is a minuscule problem that has been massively inflated by extreme-feminists simply because they refuse to accept that any woman can freely choose to prostitute herself, and as a consequence deliberately misrepresent any voluntary cross-border movement of a prostitute as coerced.

See, for example:

Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).

Despite a completely untenable position of triying to propagate the myth, the extreme-feminist (PC-fascist) Denis MacShane MP shouted down Niki Adams of the English Collective of Prostitutes on BBC Newsnight.

To understand the hysteria against prostitution that underlies this extreme-feminist nonsense you have to look in evolutionary-psychology terms. In paying for sex, men circumvent the evolved severely controlled access to sex through rank in a dominance hierarchy, thereby undermining the reproductive efficiency of the reproductive group (that is, it would have been so ancestrally, in the absence of contraception). Throughout the animal kingdom, 'policing' of male access to sex is critical, and so we would fully expect this to be manifest in human social psychology.

Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution

Nick Davies in The Guardian, Tuesday October 20

The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.

When police in July last year announced the results of Operation Pentameter Two, Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, hailed it as "a great success". Its operational head, Tim Brain, said it had seriously disrupted organised crime networks responsible for human trafficking. "The figures show how successful we have been in achieving our goals," he said.

Those figures credited Pentameter with "arresting 528 criminals associated with one of the worst crimes threatening our society". But an internal police analysis of Pentameter, obtained by the Guardian after a lengthy legal struggle, paints a very different picture.

The analysis, produced by the police Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield and marked "restricted", suggests there was a striking shortage of sex traffickers to be found in spite of six months of effort by all 55 police forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland together with the UK Border Agency, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Foreign Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish government, the Crown Prosecution Service and various NGOs in what was trumpeted as "the largest ever police crackdown on human trafficking".

The analysis reveals that 10 of the 55 police forces never found anyone to arrest. And 122 of the 528 arrests announced by police never happened: they were wrongly recorded either through honest bureaucratic error or apparent deceit by forces trying to chalk up arrests which they had not made. Among the 406 real arrests, more than half of those arrested (230) were women, and most were never implicated in trafficking at all.

Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced the success of the operation: 106 of them without any charge at all and 47 after being cautioned for minor offences. Most of the remaining 253 were not accused of trafficking: 73 were charged with immigration breaches; 76 were eventually convicted of non-trafficking offences involving drugs, driving or management of a brothel; others died, absconded or disappeared off police records.

Although police described the operation as "the culmination of months of planning and intelligence-gathering from all those stakeholders involved", the reality was that, during six months of national effort, they found only 96 people to arrest for trafficking, of whom 67 were charged.

Forty-seven of those never made it to court.

Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women who had originally been "rescued" as supposed victims. Seven of them were acquitted. The end result was that, after raiding 822 brothels, flats and massage parlours all over the UK, Pentameter finally convicted of trafficking a grand total of only 15 men and women.

Police claimed that Pentameter used the international definition of sex trafficking contained in the UN's Palermo protocol, which involves the use of coercion or deceit to transport an unwilling man or woman into prostitution. But, in reality, Pentameter used a very different definition, from the UK's 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which makes it an offence to transport a man or woman into prostitution even if this involves assisting a willing sex worker.

Internal police documents reveal that 10 of Pentameter's 15 convictions were of men and women who were jailed on the basis that there was no evidence of their coercing the prostitutes they had worked with. There were just five men who were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes. These genuinely were traffickers, but none of them was detected by Pentameter, although its investigations are still continuing.

Two of them Zhen Xu and Fei Zhang had been in custody since March 2007, a clear seven months before Pentameter started work in October 2007.

The other three, Ali Arslan, Edward Facuna and Roman Pacan, were arrested and charged as a result of an operation which began when a female victim went to police in April 2006, well over a year before Pentameter Two began, although the arrests were made while Pentameter was running.

The head of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, Grahame Maxwell, who is chief constable of North Yorkshire, acknowledged the importance of the figures: "The facts speak for themselves. I'm not trying to argue with them in any shape or form," he said.

He said he had commissioned fresh research from regional intelligence units to try to get a clearer picture of the scale of sex trafficking. "What we're trying to do is to get it gently back to some reality here," he said.

"It's not where you go down on every street corner in every street in Britain, and there's a trafficked individual.

"There are more people trafficked for labour exploitation than there are for sexual exploitation. We need to redress the balance here. People just seem to grab figures from the air."

Groups who work with trafficked women declined to comment on the figures from the Pentameter Two police operation but said that the problem of trafficking was real.

Ruth Breslin, research and development manager for Eaves which runs the Poppy project for victims of trafficking, said: "I don't know the ins and outs of the police operation. It is incredibly difficult to establish prevalence because of the undercover and potentially criminal nature of trafficking and also, we feel, because of the fear that many women have in coming forward."

The internal analysis of Pentameter notes that some records could not be found and Brain, who is chief constable of Gloucestershire, argued that some genuine traffickers may have been charged with non-trafficking offences because of the availability of evidence but he conceded that he could point to no case where this had happened.

He said the Sexual Offences Act was "not user friendly" although he said he could not recall whether he had pointed this out to government since the end of Pentameter Two.

Parliament is in the final stages of passing the policing and crime bill which contains a proposal to clamp down on trafficking by penalising any man who has sex with a woman who is "controlled for gain" even if the man is genuinely ignorant of the control. Although the definition of "controlled" has been tightened, sex workers' groups complain that the clause will encourage women to prove that they are not being controlled by working alone on the streets or in a flat without a maid, thus making them more vulnerable to attack.

There are also fears that if the new legislation deters a significant proportion of customers, prostitutes will be pressurised to have sex without condoms in order to bring them back.

The 'Strictly' 'PAKIstani' row shows the BBC's PC-fascist nature

2009-10-08T19:21:00.001+01:00

The BBC shows its true intent to denigrate the mass of ordinary people in its news coverage of the 'Strictly Come Dancing' supposed racial abuse affair.

The position that everyone on the BBC has adopted is that to naturally shorten 'Pakistani' in the same way as we naturally shorten 'Australian' is somehow offensive.

Come again? Who says? Who has any right to say?

Ordinary people in places like Bradford with large Pakistani populations are not going to say: 'I'm off down the Pakistani shop'. They are always going to use the shortened version. That is universal natural speech. It has no derogatory intent. But the BBC has derogatory intent in its insistence that the way we all naturally speak is somehow unacceptable.

Let me explain what is the basis of the BBC's ludicrous position. It is, of course, political correctness. How did we end up with this utter garbage?

It had long been obvious that the theory (Marxism in whatever form) was hopeless, but instead of changing it and admitting they'd not understood what makes people tick, the political Left blamed 'the workers' for not behaving according to Marxist prediction/prescription. 'The workers', far from 'rising up', just 'kept up with the Joneses', as anybody without ideological blinkering always knew they would. What ensued has been the biggest fraud in political history. 'The workers' were transformed in the political Left's imaginings from the mass of disadvantaged in need of 'liberation' to take over from 'the bosses' as the locus of 'oppression'. A total inversion. This is why you now never hear about 'the workers', whereas previously that phrase would have shut down a pub discussion about social justice. This complete flip meant that some other sub-group(s) had to be found to replace 'the workers' as the new lumpen supposed disadvantaged. So it was that we got women and ethnic minorities, then homosexuals, more recently trans-sexuals, and also, most recently of all, children. [Very unsexily -- for the sake of completion rather than through any enthusiasm -- they also felt they had to chuck in the disabled.] At the same time, for the reason that most of the political Left were working for the State in some way or other, the State was magically flipped from being the supposed oppressive instrument of 'the bosses' to somehow become the supposed instrument of 'liberation' for all of the newly invented 'oppressed'.

This is what we know as 'political correctness'; the political philosophy that now pervades everything -- all facets of the 'establishment', not least the judiciary and the police; all of the major political parties, and ... the BBC.

It is this new fascism -- and that is just what it is, by proper academic usage -- that is unacceptable, not how ordinary people naturally speak. So the next time that the BBC claims to be a public service broadcaster, remember how it despises you.

The Attorney General is toast: bitten on the arse by her own law to hide immigration chaos

2009-09-18T20:30:00.001+01:00

The Attorney General has no defence and is surely toast, with the non-system of immigration is more starkly exposed than ever. Given the millions -- not mere hundreds of thousands -- of illegal overstayers, does anyone imagine it was just bad luck that Baroness Scotland ended up employing an illegal migrant?

The chasm between the establishment and ordinary people that seemingly could not get any wider just did. The 'you couldn't make it up' string of cases of illegal migrants working for Government just got still more ridiculous with the several aggravating factors that destroy any explanation Baroness Scotland could give.

Bogus student applications were clearly the norm when I worked in Managed Migration within the Home Office -- at the very time (2003) that the Attorney General's home help, Loloahi Tapui, arrived to abuse the non-system we have re immigration.

We are told that as a student she was given a National Insurance number. Come again? Students do not need and are not given NI numbers because they are exempt from paying tax and NI contributions on earnings. The complete failure of the Home Office to communicate with HMRC could easily mean that an NI number was given out inappropriately -- we know that a million more numbers were given out to migrants than could be legitimately obtained. Alternatively you can get one for a few pounds on London streets.

Students are not allowed (supposedly) to work full-time -- up to 20 hours per week only -- but it was obvious to me and my co-workers in Managed Migration that huge numbers of illegals were entering in the guise of students and then remaining invisible to the authorities, given neither system nor manpower in place to in any way deal with the problem. As we see here, Ms Tapui twice applied to extend her 'leave to remain' but was refused, yet no attempt was ever made to deport or even to 'remove' her ('removal' is the merely administrative term that does not mean actual expulsion, and is used by the Government to hoodwink the public).

If Ms Tapui had been granted an extension, she would have received a simple printed letter to confirm this. Anyone can alter and photocopy such a letter and pass it off as an original from the Home Office. Is this how Baroness Scotland was fooled?

Employers who have contacted the Home Office to ask them to verify such documents have been told that this is the employers' responsibility. The Home Office knows full well that their own staff can't easily tell the difference between a genuine 'leave to remain' letter and a forgery; and, more especially, that fraudulent applications are very likely to have been granted. This is why the onus is placed on employers, who have no means of establishing whether or not migrants are legal or illegal. So it was that Victor and Jason Cox ended up in Maidstone Prison after a raid by SOCA -- the serious crime squad -- not led by the Immigration Service, note; having done nothing wrong except to approach the Home Office to help them sift their applicants. Similarly, the former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Monckton, has pursued through judicial review a very similar case against an employer client of his.

Not only has Ms Tapui managed with no effort and unchallenged to overstay in Britain for the last five years, but she actually got married; thereby revealing more absurd loophiles. The mass of bogus marriages is still happening though the loophole of the CofE not being required to notify the Home Office of any details of brides and grooms. This despite the Home Office knowing for decades of the major problem of illegal immigration by marriage.

It's not as though the ongoing farce has changed or is about to. The Government's much touted border controls to count people in and out is not scheduled to be implemented until 2014. And we keep hearing of ever larger numbers of supposed colleges purporting to teach English are actually fronts for illegals posing as students.

Short of gunning down voters in the street, the Government has nowhere further to descend in showing its utter contempt for us all, in its PC-fascist crusade to 'diversify' us into a people who will accept the blame for the political Left's own human nature defying ethos.

Harriet Harman ... 'Harperson' ... 'Hateperson'. I'm on BBC1 today discussing 'Has feminism had its day?' on 'The Big Questions'

2009-08-09T07:08:00.001+01:00

I will be discussing 'Has feminism had its day?' on the BBC1 show 'The Big Questions' today, after a week of Harriet Harman's anti-male rants repeatedly exposing her inability to think in even the simplest terms. Throughout her 'while-the-cat's-away-the-mice-will-play' week she has tried to run together two opposite arguments: that men and women are exactly the same and that they're radically different! Self-evidently she can't have it both ways. She has hopelessly confused essential sex-differences with an equality (of-outcome) agenda; citing one and denying the other one minute, and vice-versa the next.

For example: she cites sex-difference to argue a 'representative' 50/50 'gender' balance of MPs and ministers, yet she also asserts that the sexes are identical when it comes to motivation to get into top jobs such as MPs and ministers and that therefore it must be sex-discrimination that explains why women don't already constitute 50% of MPs and ministers. Stupidity incarnate, but where were the journalists to point out this great elephant in the room?

Her fallacy is still worse than it seems. Women indeed are very different to men -- this side of the argument Harriet's got right; though she's light years away from understanding what is the difference -- not least in that men are fiercely motivated to compete with each other for status, whereas women aren't. This is why there are always lots more men at the top. So what of the women who aspire to ape them? Well, they can hardly be typical women. So how can they represent the great majority of women, then? They can't. The least representative woman in Britain after Julie Bindle, Beatrix Campbell and Fiona MacTaggert -- other than Rose West -- is Harriet 'Hateperson' [as Rod Liddle dubs her] herself. Female leaders are like men without their good side: the worst of both feminine and masculine worlds. Margaret Thatcher?

To cap it all, Harman is wilfully blind to the statistics showing that most measures of disadvantage reveal not women/girls but men/boys as being in need of interventions.

You too could as imbecilic, if you were as ideologically driven to hate as is Harriet.

Harman's feminism is a political extension of how we naturally 'big up' females and 'do down' males. So it's a further social injustice on top of natural prejudices. This will soon be recognised for what it is, and feminism will be consigned to the historical dustbin (no less than were other ideas we now consider appalling), along with the rest of PC, of which it is core. [I've written in my book, The Woman Racket, about the origins of PC as a reaction against 'the workers' as displacement from junking the neo-Marxist creed as a hopeless fit with human nature.]

The reality is that women are always preferenced in any society, because of the key biological fact that the female is always the 'limiting factor' in reproduction (as we can see all too clearly in humans); and all social systems at root by evolved 'design' are to make reproduction more efficient. So it is that males are psychologically motivated to compete against each other for rank in the hierarchy; high rank being the 'power' without which most males are in various ways socially sanctioned to stop them from having much access to sex and reproducing -- if any at all in many cases.

The 'policing' mechanisms that are key parts of the social psychology of all men and women ensure this. Hence our natural prejudices against men and in favour of women.

As a consequence, in any historical period you care to look, society is always structured to preference women given the conditions and constraints that pertain. As soon as any of those conditions/restraints change to make the social set-up anachronistic, then there is a transition to a new social set-up to restore full preferencing of women.

The anachronisms that emerged in the past and the transitions that followed are mistaken by feminists as evidence of the 'oppression' of women. This faulty reasoning applies to any of the feminist-championed supposed injustices of the past, not least the vote. [See my two historical chapters in the centre of The Woman Racket.]

[A deeper biological understanding of the essence of sex difference is that the male is the sex that specialises as the vehicle to effectively quarantine the inevitable build-up of gene-copying errors to keep them away from the female so she can get on with reproduction. This is termed the 'genetic filter' function of the male. Under the load of accumulated gene-copying errors, many males either die, don't reproduce, or reproduce only minimally, and in these ways in effect take gene-copying errors with them and out of the gene pool. The best way for males to be tested re their genetic loads is to get them to compete against each other -- hence the male dominance hierarchy (females instead have a 'personal network' so as to exchange information on males -- gossip, in other words!).]

Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now

Beverley Hughes is quitting 'cos she's just been found out to be a liar: new FOI disclosures.

2009-06-02T12:49:00.001+01:00

Beverley Hughes, MP and children's minister, is standing down, she says, to spend more time with her family.

Oh yes?

It's an old euphemism.

Just a coincidence then that she is not responding to her local paper's request to discuss the new Freedom of Information disclosures of Home Office documents proving she lied in the immigration scandal over which she presided?

Bev had to resign as minister for immigration back in 2004 for 'misleading the House (of Commons)' -- lying, IOW -- re what she knew of problems with visas at our Romanian embassy. This was in the wake of my coming forward as a 'whistle-blower' over systematic illegal non-application of immigration law across all immigration casework [rubber-stamping applications without checking them, in a procedure named BRACE -- 'backlog reduction accelerated clearance exercise' -- which was applied to all cases for periods].

What is new -- with the long-awaited disclosure from the Home Office after my FOI request back in 2005, when the Act first came into law -- is that it is now proven that she lied about the whole wider problem of illegal administration of immigration applications.

This shows that she is unfit to be either a minister (which she still is; though not of immigration, obviously) or an MP.

Below is my analysis re the most telling lines from the Home Office disclosure documents (which are archived in several small bundles on their website's FOI pages).

Major points in the newly disclosed documents.

Page 2. Point 4. Dated March 7, 2003, this is a call by the Director General of the Immigration & Nationality Directorate, Bill Jeffrey, for a review of the then current practice in the "wider application" of BRACE [that is, not just re cases over 12 months old, as mentioned in an earlier memo (page 1) to Beverley Hughes from Bill Brandon, the official who originated BRACE; but whenever BRACE was applied] that allowed no refusals, or a refusal only after reference to a senior caseworker. IOW, in effect all applications had to be granted whenever BRACE was applied to the caseload.

-- This proves that the Sutton Report's conclusion re BRACE -- that the problem of blanket refusals was restricted to Sheffield through a local management decision -- was a deliberate lie.

On the page 'Lines to take' re Bev Hughes misleading the commons (page 8?); second bullet point:

This states re Hughes' statement to Parliament on March 12, that she was asking Ken Sutton to look into "any previous exercises over the past 10 years dealing with backlogs". Yet from the evidence on pages 1-4 of the disclosure documents, Hughes well knew and had approved of 'rubber-stamped' blanket clearance exercises.

-- This proves that the then immigration minister, Beverley Hughes, deliberately seriously lied to Parliament about the Sutton Report. She knew that if it was conducted honestly, it would find pan-IND top-level approved systematic wholesale abuse of immigration law; and so she pretended she was not aware of the truth, and was party to setting up Sutton's report committee to invent a more palatable truth.

Four pages from the end of the disclosure documents, in a document retrospectively summarising the BRACE operations (obviously dated after I had come forward to 'whistle-blow' in March 2004):

"From 27 March the BRACE approach was extended to all cases over 9 months old and from 14 April to cases over 6 months old. ..... In July 2003 ..... staff were encouraged to grant applications older than 3 months which were submitted before 1 August unless the information on the file supported refusal."

-- Given that the line from the top, approved by Hughes, was that there must not be a refusal of an application unless it was through failure of the applicant to supply information after a further request for information, yet at the same time, sending out for further requesting was no longer allowed; then this means that ALL cases had to be granted, and none could be refused.

Given that with the enormous delays, no case was ever under 3 months old, then ALL applications processed by the whole of the Managed Migration caseworking workforce across Croydon and Sheffield were under BRACE, and therefore all applications had to be granted!

At the end of this document assessing the history of BRACE: "How many cases, in Croydon/Sheffield have/are still subject to BRACE?"!

-- This shows that BRACE was ongoing even after I had come forward.

Second to last page of the disclosed documents:

Anonymous email dated March 19, 2004 to Bev Hughes, Bill Jeffrey, Paula Higson (head of Managed Migration) and Ken Sutton, confirms that consideration of cases under BRACE was being suspended.

-- Given the rank of all of these people (the top brass in the IND) then presumably this was from either Sir John Gieve (the then Home Office permanent Secretary) or from Government special advisers, either attached to Hughes' office, or more senior [attached to the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett; or the PM.].

The email stated: "Should this guidance become public I would suggest our line should be: 'Government has ordered a full investigation of how it came about that guidance was issued to staff in the Sheffield office of the IND on the handling of applications under the ECAA agreements without minister;s knowledge or that of senior IND management, which will cover the way in which backlogs of general casework have been handled'."

-- The line that the problem was local to Sheffield and not known to ministers or senior officials is clearly an invention for political expediency made on the hoof and emanating from outside of the IND management.

The disclosure documents reveal that everybody at the Home Office -- ministers and senior civil srevants -- lied about key aspects the immigration scandal that broke in 2004.

Steve Moxon

FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE MET POLICE: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE BY THE HOME OFFICE

2008-12-03T18:32:00.001Z

This is the complaint I have sent to the Metropolitan Police (to boomerang the whole leak/immigration debacle back on to the Home Office so as at last to bring the department to book for systematic failure to administer UK immigration law) .....

Mr Steven Paul Moxon [Former employee of the Managed Migration sub-division of the Immigration & Nationality Directorate (now named the Borders & Immigration Agency) within the Home Office; author of The Great Immigration Scandal, and the 'whistle-blower' in 2004 re immigration under the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act]

December 1, 2008

FORMAL COMPLAINT: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE BY THE HOME OFFICE PERMANENT SECRETARY, SIR DAVID NORMINGTON (AND HIS PREDECESSORS); THE HOME SECRETARY, JACQUI SMITH (AND HER PREDECESSORS); THE DIRECTOR OF THE BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION AGENCY, LIN HOMER (AND HER PREDECESSORS AT THE THEN NAMED IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY DIRECTORATE); HOME OFFICE TOP MANAGEMENT, AND I.N.D./B.I.A. MANAGEMENT AT VARIOUS LEVELS.

Dear Sirs/Madams

Noting the Metropolitan Police's recourse to the common law provision re 'conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office' with respect to leaks from the office of the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in response to a complaint from Sir David Normington, the permanent secretary of the Home Office; I am hereby making a complaint to request the Metropolitan Police similarly to take action utilising the very same law against the Home Office itself for the aforementioned criminal offence of 'conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office'. This is in respect of current and long-established systematic, wholesale and deliberate failure to apply the law on immigration as required by Act(s) of Parliament to the processing of applications from individuals to enter the United Kingdom as legal migrants according to the various categories administered by the Managed Migration subdivision of the Borders and Immigration Agency (formerly the Immigration & Nationality Directorate).

The prima facie evidence for this was revealed in 2004 when I myself was working as a Managed Migration caseworker within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, and I came forward under the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. With no announcements subsequently at any time from the Home Office or any part of it that has addressed the four categories of illegality I identified (see 1-4 below), and through subsequent contact with (ex-)colleagues and others including liaison with an (ex-)colleague who was planning to bring an Employment Tribunal case in part over these issues -- it is clear that there has been no substantive change between 2004 and the present. I revealed the profound failure to apply immigration law in four respects:

1. The long-established restriction placed by IND/BIA management on all Managed Migration caseworkers of a very low percentage (less than 10%) of applications that they may refuse. If this ceiling is exceeded, an individual caseworker is then subject to negative appraisal by line management, and in turn disciplinary action if the deemed 'problem' persisted, and ultimately dismissal from employment. This necessarily produces a very large mass of granted applications that would never be granted on their individual merits according to the immigration law.

2. The long-established practice of management-enforced severe restriction on assessing the evidence required by the immigration law in respect of the various categories of immigration application. This is the failure in consistent practice to require many of the types of evidence supposedly essential to establish the authenticity and eligibility of an applicant to be approved for migration to the United Kingdom, and/or to require such inadequate evidence as to amount effectively to no evidence, especially in the light of known levels and methods of committing fraud, which are obvious to caseworkers and management [Full details of this -- and re all of points 1-4 here are presented in the book, The Great Immigration Scandal, published by Imprint Academic in 2004, 2006.]

3. The use of blanket clearance exercises (code-named BRACE 'Backlog Reduction Accelerated Clearance Exercise'), that achieve greatly increased speed of process of immigration applications through systematic and wholesale only partial checking the non-appraisal of types of evidence required by law to be considered in assessing applications re all or some workstreams (types of immigration application).

4. The use of blanket clearance exercises (code-named BRACE 'Backlog Reduction Accelerated Clearance Exercise') whereby no checks of any kind are carried out on any and every application for immigration to the United Kingdom in one, several or all workstreams for a period of time.

The evidence is in the form of an affidavit to the Sunday Times newspaper, which was then placed in the public domain; in submissions to Home Office investigations; in copies of documents that I took away from the Home Office, as lodged with the Sunday Times; and, as just mentioned, in my referenced book, The Great Immigration Scandal (2004, 2006, Imprint Academic). There is no rebuttal of the substance of this material from the Home Office. To repeat: the absence of any announcement from the Home Office or from any part of it to address my revelations, together with indication from (ex-) colleagues, indicates that with the possible exception of any recurrence of (4) nothing substantive has changed in the time intervening since 2004. Given that supporting evidence is mostly already fully in the public domain (and can be supplied upon request), and that there is firm support for my claims from many major public figures, from whom statements of support can be easily obtained; then a prima facie case is clearly established.

It should be noted that although the law allows 'Secretary of State's discretion' in how an individual caseworker handles an individual application, so that if in a particular case all the required evidence is not quite met that an exception may be made in that case if there are compassionate or some other grounds; this expressly does not apply to consideration of whole caseloads, so it cannot be used to justify any of the four breaches of the law I outline above not that such major deviation from procedure by a caseworker even for any individual application would be allowable under the law in any case.

In particular, it should be noted that I lodged a Freedom of Information request with the Home Office in January 2005 (under the Freedom of Information Act that had become law that very month), in respect of my points 3 and 4 above; and regarding this I have liaised closely with the Office of the Information Commissioner. But despite several 'non-compliance' orders placed on the Home Office by the OIC which does not accept that the Home Office has good reason under the law to refuse disclosure the Home Office has persisted (and still persists) in refusing to disclose. To refuse disclosure pertaining to systematic illegality, self-evidently is itself illegality by the Home Office, and is clear indication that there is serious failure to abide by the law that the Home Office sees no alternative but to keep secret because of what would be the consequences for the careers or the continued employment of some of its senior officials.

This is a formal complaint, upon which I request prompt action and indication of timescale and procedure that the Metropolitan Police would propose.

I reserve the right to amend the wording in the light of any subsequent advice I receive from expert parties.

Yours sincerely

Steven Paul Moxon

Prostitution is not 'control' of women: it's the exploitation of men

2008-11-22T08:17:00.001Z

The Government has had to admit that there is no public support at all for outlawing prostitution; especially for a one-sided outlawing where only the men paying for it are criminalised -- that is, victimised. So instead, it proposes more legislation based on entirely false extreme feminist notions about 'control' of women.

As representatives of prostitutes, like Niki Adams, regularly loudly complain: the number of women 'trafficked' is a figment of feminist imagination. The trick the Home Office and other feminist advocate organisations employ is just to misrepresent the totals for women crossing borders as the numbers of women supposedly made to cross borders against their will. But there is very clear research on the question of 'trafficking', and it shows it to be a minuscule problem. And it's not just the research but what has been shown in practice. As a good example, ahead of the World Cup in Germany huge resources were put into setting up systems to find 'trafficked' women. A grand total of just five were ever found.

It is a similar story when it comes to the raids on 'massage parlours' here in Britain. Contrary to the Home Office propaganda, the great majority of women who work in 'massage parlours' and in prostitution as it otherwise manifests are native British. Of any non-British girls police have found in raids, almost all are foreigners either legally here (usually EU citizens) or illegals. Despite pressure and incentives, police have not succeeded in getting the girls to say that they've been 'trafficked'. That's because they haven't been. As the principal researcher into this issue, Jo Doezema, concludes: women may well come here and find that their working conditions are not as they had hoped; but they did come here of their own free will. Clearly, indeed there are some women who have been 'trafficked', but it is a tiny problem (0.1% of UK prostitutes according to the police's own report after Operation Pentameter: the obvious reason why the trafficking unit has had its funding withdrawn.)

All is disinformation regarding the street prostitution scene as well. Contrary to what the Home Office would have us believe, this is a very small fraction of the prostitution scene as a whole, yet even here the pimp is very thin on the ground. The man who may be looking out for the typically very part-time street-walker is usually simply the woman's boyfriend. The woman may be supplementing the income of both of them, but you can bet that the new legislation will be abused to make out that clients of the women are paying for sex with a 'controlled' woman.

The 'massage parlours' are in the Government's sights for a similar abuse. These are businesses that suit many women because they can simply turn up for a shift without having to do any of the organisational side of obtaining clients. The woman gives a cut of her takings to the 'parlour' owner to cover the owner's efforts. This again is not 'control' of women. It is actually less control of women than is exercised by any employer. Women in 'massage parlours' are self-employed and they are notorious for absenteeism! Yet you can bet that the 'control' ruse will be used as a pretext to close the places down.

The ostensible rationale behind all of this is to help women who have taken the prostitution route, but in fact it is motivated by the very reverse. The subtext is that women by definition cannot have made a free choice to become a prostitute, and that therefore they must be 'controlled' by men. No amount of testimony from the women themselves causes any deviation to this mantra. This is because the actual basis of the politics is naked hatred of men. This comes from a failed feminism that in desperation goes to an extreme; feminism itself being very much in sync with the perennial social need to 'control' men, that is ever likely to engender an extreme prejudice against them. It also comes from competition amongst women, and the feeling that women who give sex freely are 'letting the side down'.

The end result of the thrust of Government meddling is to push prostitution to being less safe for the provider (and for the client). The street prostitute is to be denied the simple alternative of the 'massage parlour'. That she may be able to set up in partnership with another prostitute as a prostitute-controlled two-woman brothel is impractical, because these women mostly don't have either the nous or the inclination to organise, as evidenced by their often chaotic lives. Yes, there is an increasing sophistication whereby women are advertised through websites as 'escorts', but although some of these are set up by the women themselves, most are on-line through an agency. So there's another supposedly evil figure in the background the Government will want the police to go after.

Well, given this impending crackdown, and the increasing predilection for students to take to prostitution, it could be that a big development will be individual 'sugar-daddy'/'sugar-babe' arrangements. Here a man pays a woman on the understanding that he is the only one in receipt of paid-for sex, and that she is not a prostitute. If this is the form that the Government intends paid-sex to be restricted to, then it will serve to establish further that paying for sex is just a normal form of sex. After all, all sex that men have is paid for in some way. A common joke is that the more explicit the payment, the less expensive is the sex!

The perception will be more and more that sex is not the exploitation of women by men, but the opposite. Prostitution is so obviously exploitation for money by women of the universal male desire for sex with a variety of women, that it has taken a vehemently feminist truth-distortion to have persuaded people it was ever otherwise. This mis-perception will disappear. Is this what the Government intends? Consequences are not at issue: all is posturing.

No ceiling, 'concrete' or glass

2008-09-07T08:56:00.001+01:00

There is no "concrete ceiling" for women. Or even a glass one, come to that. Yet this entirely bogus and unscientific notion is claimed by the Equality & Human Rights Commission -- as a continuation of the old mantra from the unlamented EOC. Women newspaper columnists have queued up this last week to rubbish it, though only on the unenlightened usual lines of women being held back by babies. The broadcast media struggled even to manage this, notably remaining as scientifically illiterate on this as on all matters.

Women certainly are 'going backwards', but it's not just over the past year as the EHRC fears: the position of women at the top has been consistently falling for well over a decade -- probably two. Women become less evident in commercial organisations the more commercial (and therefore hierarchical) they are. The numbers of women on the board has declined, and even more so have the numbers of women even in any 'head of function' role -- which is the launchpad for future board membership. This means that the decline will continue to accelerate.

Why? Because women are not men.

Regarding almost any sort of ability or achievement that you care to measure, you always find mostly men at both the top and at the bottom. Women by contrast bunch in the middle. This is the result of the very different motivations of the sexes. Men have to compete with each other for status in order to 'have a life' -- 'mate value' in biological terms. They tend to have an all-or-nothing approach and to put their eggs in one basket. They either succeed or fail rather than hanging about to be merely mediocre. For women, it's another world. To 'have a life', status is of no use at all to them -- at least in any direct way (women can of course compete to place themselves in the milieu of high status men, but even this often backfires). Women 'have a life' simply as they are. Their youth and beauty is the measure of their fertility, which is what 'mate value' is for females. This does not have to be -- and cannot be -- competed for.

Nothing will ever get round this most profound sex difference at the very root of all social organisation -- in ourselves and in all other animal species. Even if women on average became more able than men, the stark reality of different types of distribution of attributes and abilities that characterise the sexes would still leave the top of organisations predominantly if not exclusively male.

But why do we never hear about the men correspondingly at the bottom? This is because of the basis of the greatest prejudice in all societies, which is against men generically -- based on the biology of 'policing' the male hierarchy. Equal opportunities bodies would do much better to focus on the real disadvantaged sub-group in this as in every society: the majority of (necessarily lower status) men, and not women at all.

Indeed it is the greatest political scandal that they don't. Especially given the very recent research on profound sex discrimination against men in applying even for the most male sex-typical professional jobs. Men are now discriminated against to the point that they are four times less likely to get an interview (Riach & Rich, 2006). Now, if anything in the world of work needed something done about it, then it is this stark new sex discrimination. But being the 'wrong way round', as it were, for the liking of contemporary political prejudice, then we can expect a deathly hush.

[Cathy Newman of Channel4 emailed me to say that she disagreed with all of the above. Does this mean that science is not allowed on Channel4? On the basis of just what theory or data does C4 base its line on men-women? None at all: there is no theory or data to support it.]

Yours

Steve Moxon

Playing man-hating politics with murder law

2008-07-31T09:41:00.001+01:00

The proposed changes in the law on murder are overtly 'gender politics' with
all the hallmarks of Harriet Harperson's visceral hatred of men. A man who
kills in a jealous rage will have no defence to a charge of murder, whereas
a woman who kills her sleeping husband in some supposed release of
bottled-up rage will do.

This flies in the face of the science. There is very well researched sex
difference in jealousy: which in men is aroused by a single act of sexual
infidelity (an evolved response because a woman having extra-pair sex can
return bearing a child, whereas a man cannot) but in women by emotional
infidelity (because this heralds a man's desertion). Women are far less
concerned with a partner simply 'playing away' sexually if that is all it
is. This is why men much more than women kill a rival or a partner in an
uncontrollable rage upon discovering infidelity.

There is no sex difference that has ever been found in scientific research
in bottling up rage for it to explode at a much later time, as is supposed
to explain the predilection for women to murder their sleeping partners. It
is this scenario that is behind the proposals. Both sexes have very real
fears in a serious domestic violence situation, but the attempt is to try to
tease out one more pertaining to women: 'fear of violence' (though in fact
research now comprehensively shows that there is if anything more violence
domestically by women than by men). This can then be used to supposedly
justify a pre-emptive lethal attack on an incapacitated male partner when of
course there is no justification to do other than simply leave.

It is welcome that Harriet Harperson's sex-hate fascism will now be the
subject of parliamentary scrutiny. It is hard to see how even the stupidity
of MPs could ever let through nonsense as profound as these proposals.

The men women shun are now forced to pay for these women’s anonymous kids

2008-05-20T19:50:00.002+01:00

The very women who shun any man from being in their lives, now through the taxation system can force all men -- including the very men they've left to live alone -- to pay to support their officially sanctioned anonymously fathered kids. And handsomely. Many male taxpayers won't earn anything like the sum paid to a single parent and her children. They don't get to keep much of what they earn until the Government lets them -- only when they somehow get to form the family that their lack of a 'family wage' usually prevents.

And we'll be made to pay many times over, given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness on children to create massive compounded social breakdown.

This is the result of tonight's disgraceful vote in the House of Commons on the opposition amendment to include the need for a father when seeking IVF treatment. The Government won by 72 votes. It was a free vote and some Labour MPs voted for the amendment against the Government. So even without a whip, a majority of the deplorable bunch of green leather mites decided to uphold their own out-of-touch PC fascist politics and to defecate on the country.

The Government could not do anything to more conclusively show that it has lost the right to govern on behalf of us all by going against the wishes of 80% of the population in this (as was the result of a very recent poll). It is not the IVF that this directly applies to that is the issue, but the enshrining in law of a fundamental undermining of sociality. It is a further assertion by those who have long shown themselves to be unfit to govern us, that people somehow don't belong to themselves but instead belong to the government, and must be paid for by us all, irrespective of how obviously unreasonable their behaviour may be.

The Government has further compounded the pointlessness of ever bothering to go to work for a large swathe of the bulk of the population made up of what was once called 'the working man'.

The men women shun are now forced to pay for these women’s anonymous kids

2008-05-20T19:50:00.001+01:00

And we'll be made to pay many times over, given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness on children to create massive compounded social breakdown.

The Government has further compounded the pointlessness of ever bothering to go to work for a large swathe of the bulk of the population made up of what was once called 'the working man'.

Crazy abolition of the 10p tax band is explained by its anti-male intention

2008-04-20T08:12:00.001+01:00

The universal consternation over the Government's obviously crazy abolition of the 10p tax band does have an explanation, of course. And it is not ham-fistedness. Just as the equally obvious unfairness of the infamous poll tax was a pathological consequence of ideology, so is the Government's taxation policy.

The PC fascist contempt and hatred for ordinary people -- specifically for the male -- is the driving force behind much of what the Government does. The obverse of this of over-privileging women is what is behind measures to support the family. Of course, the Government conceives of the family as any household with children that contains a woman, and preferably one that does not contain a man. The main point of tax credits is the furtherance of the household that does not contain a man. Most households that contain only one person, and most households that contain only one person in work, are male. Males make a still larger subset of these households that have no recourse to tax credits through earning above the minimum wage.

Men are driven to earn more because men need to earn if they are to have any sort of normal life -- that is, to attract a partner. Of course, governments have always relied on the male propensity to earn as the basis of creaming off ever larger slices in taxation. This is why beer has always been so highly taxed. Now that has gone so far that the pub is now under threat. The Government doesn't mind about this, because the pub is perceived as a male centre of the community.

These men are the true working poor, in that they are working for low wages but have no relief of any kind. Any attack on their income will tend to make them even less marriageable than they already are. Over-taxing single men tends to prevent them from forming a family household in the first place. From this perspective it makes perfect sense for the Government to make the income tax changes it has made. This is why ministers and Labour MPs have defended Gordon Brown by arguing that those who are winners through the tax changes are more worthy than the five million or so who are the losers.

For male low wage earners, a normal life is not feasible until they become clients of the state in that only through their stat-supported female partner do they become eligible for major boosts to their income that allow them to be able to support a family. This has reversed reality. Reality is that women look for a male partner to support a family, whereas governments have distorted the rewards from work so that males are not allowed to be in a position to provide for a woman until a family household has been established. Even then, the man is a member of the household for which he is the principal earner only on sufferance. He can be thrown out on a whim through obscene domestic violence laws that actively promote false accusation.

If ever there was a point at which the 'progressive project' fully came off the rails, then the abolition of the 10p tax band is it. There is anything but a 'progressive' project: it is comprehensively regressive. Now both commentators in the media and ordinary people at last are starting to wake up to this fact.

News, Sports, Entertainment and Weather on your mobile. Text MSN to 63463 Now.

Shouldn't it be Heather Mills paying Paul McCartney?

2008-03-19T10:00:00.001Z

In a fair world, Lady Mucca, aka Heather Mills, would be charged with perjury and assault for her behaviour in the courtroom, and instead of getting any money at all in her own name (as against for her daughter, of course) ordered to pay back Sir Paul McCartney some of the large amount of money she has made off the back of his name; and to pay an additional amount as consideration for her lying attempts to damage his reputation, and to cover some of his loss of income through the blunting of his creative edge as a result of the marriage.

Some commentators have compared Mucca to a prostitute, but this is being very unkind to that profession. Unless you're as daft as Mr Spitzer, prostitutes are a lot cheaper than Mucca's hourly rate (several hundred pounds based on the £24 million for the short marriage). What is more, prostitutes ask for the money and negotiate up-front. It's only at the bottom end of the market that the service can fall way short of that promised, and it is only the criminals amongst them who, after providing the service, pretend their fee is higher than what had been negotiated.

What is promising about the judgement in this divorce case is the small fraction of the ex-husband's assets that have been awarded to the ex-wife. If such a ratio was applied in the cases of ordinary mortals, then the gravy train of divorce would really come off the rails.

The one justifiable basis in fairness (as opposed to law) for Mucca to get any award at all is that the case was initiated by Sir Paul. The great majority of divorces are initiated by the wife. If we had divorce law that properly rewarded unjustified breach of contract with no money at all, then what a better world it would be. You could go much further. Marriage for the great majority of wives is a clear benefit, in that they are supported to fulfil evolved natural roles as mother and home-maker. For men, unless they are in the small minority who really do enjoy their jobs, marriage is much more like a cost. Isn't there a case that a wife who for no good reason leaves the husband who has been consistently providing for her, owes her husband a refund?

Messenger on the move… Text MSN to 63463 now!

Spitzer and prostitution

2008-03-18T19:34:00.001Z

The appeal of prostitutes is simple: it satisfies universal male desire for novel sexual partners. It's a desire which usually cannot be met through the women a man can get by virtue of his status -- most men are not high enough in status for women to find them attractive enough to agree to no-strings sex. (Most men have to promise reliability to make up for their low status, by agreeing to a life that, pejoratively speaking, is as the wage-slave of a wife.)
If, on the other hand, like Spitzer you have status by the bucketful, then it's a very different problem that prostitution solves. Casual sex partners for these men are readily available, but the women are liable to want more than casual sex, of course. They'd like to convert the casual sex into a relationship. And they have a lever with which to do this: the threat to tell the wife -- with a hefty dose of exaggeration to make out that the full-blown affair they're after has already come into being.
Hence the old adage that paying a prostitute is not so much paying a rent for temporary use of her body than it is paying her to go away afterwards.

With prostitution, men are of course happy to be relieved of any pretence they might have to make to a casual sex partner that the sex is anything other than casual. But that's not a desire for some different form of sex. It's just a desire for less hassle, and to be allowed to be honest. The feminist myth that prostitution is exploitation by men of women -- rather than the reality that it is exploitation of men by women -- extends to imagining that men want through prostitution some sort of overtly exploitative interaction that they can't get normally. They want nothing of the kind. Such notions are complete baloney.
Extra-pair sex with novel sexual partners is exactly what it seems. It's sex. It's as simple as that.

_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.

http://www.searchgamesbox.com

The Ipswich killings are anything but indicative of how men treat women

2008-02-22T14:55:00.001Z

The BBC's flagship TV news programme, Newsnight, last night invited me on to discuss broader questions in the wake of the Ipswich serial killing of street prostitutes. I rubbed my hands when they told me that my sparring partner would be the ex-Home Office minister who so vociferously expresses her prejudice towards men, Fiona McTaggart. I confess though that with the ripeness of the (Mc)Target and so many points to try to get out and develop, I took Kirsty Walk's invitation to interrupt each other a little too much to heart.

The knee-jerk reaction to the story of Steve Wright is that his behaviour is emblematic of how prostitutes are treated, and that this in turn reflects how supposedly men treat women more generally: that is, male 'oppression'. This is an absurd view. First, from general principles of what we know through science about how the sexes interact, there is no 'power' relation between them; in no species is there any cross-sex biological dominance interaction -- it's always only same-sex. Furthermore, the main business of social systems is the 'policing' of the male hierarchy, and to this end we all share a social psychology that has as a major component what psychologists term 'cheater detection' mechanisms. This is the basis of the pervasive prejudice towards men, which underpins bizarre attitudes to prostitution (as re other interfaces of men and women, such as 'pornography', rape, and domestic violence).

All normal men desire -- quite apart from a stable, loving relationship -- an endless string of novel sexual partners. Most men don't interest women in this activity, because they aren't high enough in status for women to be sufficiently attracted to them. Even for those men who do interest women, extra-pair sex is fraught with danger (not least women wanting to steal them from their partners). The most straightforward and honest way to satiate the desire for extra-pair sex is to pay for it. But if men pay for extra-pair sex, then we intuitively see them as having 'broken the rules', in how we naturally 'police' the male hierarchy. This is why there is such a general downer on prostitution. Yet the exploitation here clearly is not of the women, but of the normal desires of men: men are exploited by women for money.

There's not been a case like Steve Wright since Peter Sutcliffe, and nobody has yet fathomed what went on in his mind. Ditto re Aileen Wuornos, the prostitute serial killer of her male clients, who was not merely a serial killer but one who revelled in her murdering. Male or female, these are vanishingly rare individuals. Looking at crime overall in prostitution, it's suffered mainly by the male clients, and predominantly in the street scene, which is nowadays a very small proportion of prostitution (most being internet related or through 'massage parlours'). The ruse of taking the money and not providing the 'service' is so ubiquitous that it merits a slang word for it: 'clipping'. In the situation of street prostitution, the male client is very much not the one in control. Clients are at risk from girls singly or together, or from their male accomplices. Given this, it is amazing why there is not so very much more violence towards street prostitutes. The reason, of course, is that (all normal) men have a natural in-built aversion to being violent towards women. Streetwalkers have mostly the other girls to fear rather than clients -- or pimps. (Pimps are thin on the ground. Rather than a supposed pimp hooking a girl on drugs, the usual relationship is the mutually satisfactory one of 'hooker' and dealer.) If you doubt this picture of street prostitution, try living in a red light area, as I did for twenty years. It's a real eye opener.

Perhaps the realities of prostitution had something to do with the serial killing behaviour by both Steve Wright and Aileen Wuornos -- both could have resented for their different reasons why they were involved in prostitution. Who knows? Either way, it doesn't say much about prostitution nor about how the sexes relate more generally.

The bogus attitude that prostitution is to do with the oppression of women leads to the notion that no woman can freely choose prostitution. If she does, then she is held to be suffering from 'false consciousness'. This is why the cross-border movement of women from low-wage to high-wage economies is mis-labelled by extreme feminists as 'trafficking'. All of the research on this topic shows that 'trafficking' is an insignificant problem. It exists, but on a very small scale. As the farcical Operation Pentameter raids revealed, of the actually quite small minority of women prostitutes in Britain who have come from overseas, most are from the EU (especially from the countries that have only recently joined), and of those who are illegals, they have almost all come of their own accord. Researchers find that women may arrive and find that their working conditions are not what they expected or hoped for. This is nothing to do with being 'trafficked'. The propaganda re 'trafficking' is a resurrection of the old 'white slave trade' myth on the 19th century, and is a ruse to further the argument that paying for sex should be outlawed. McTaggart denied that this was the thrust of her efforts when she was a Home Office minister, but it is now admitted by the Home Office that that is the intention. It is nothing more than the fascism of political correctness.

The idea that violence is a window on supposed male oppression of women goes out of the window when you look at what proportion of violence perpetrated by each sex is against the opposite sex. For men, only a very small proportion of their violence is against women, but for women, their same-sex violence runs at only half that which they dish out to men.

_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml

The Woman Racket

2007-12-17T19:05:00.000Z

The Woman Racket is the first book to relate very recent science that is set to blow apart how currently we see men-women.

The sexes, it turns out, do not have any sort of 'power' relationship, but beneath the surface live in very separate worlds with profoundly different motivations. This all stems from why it is that we have the sexes. The male acts as the essential 'genetic filter' for the species.

The upshot is that not women but (the majority of) men are those disadvantaged in all societies.

This reality had been unearthed by Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power), but he couldn't explain it. The science here both explains and reveals in more depth, and exposes other phenomena not so apparent.
We can't see any of this because males have to be 'policed' in ways requiring within us all (men and women both) deep-seated prejudices against them.

The political ramifications could hardly be more earth-shaking.
(The Woman Racket was several years in the researching and is not a follow-up to the author's previous book, The Great Immigration Scandal, though both deal with facets of 'political correctness'.)

‘Not me guv’: Diffusion of responsibility amid collapse

2007-11-18T09:06:00.000Z

'Not me guv' is more and more the Government line. That's the shout by the culpable as they point to the fall guys they themselves had set up. Here it's our governors who put in place people to implement what they've made completely unworkable; whether it's the security industry to check the immigration status of their own workforce, or the outsourced firms to provide the necessary 'heavies' to 'remove' illegal immigrants -- and are now themselves in the news, apparently indeed for being 'heavy' (according to the Borders and Immigration Agency Complaints Audit Committee).
It does occur to the slightly cynical amongst us that this week's Home Office car crash turned pile-up is about to grow longer in the thick fog. Some of these maligned 'removals' men could well turn out to be of the very licensed but unchecked illegal migrants that is the main source of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's current troubles. After all, the firms involved certainly come under the 'security' umbrella.
Isn't immigration wonderful? A still more daft 'you couldn't make it up' story around every corner.

Nothing -- no aspect -- of the immigration and asylum system works, as the Home Office knows all too well. So they've palmed off whatever they can to maximise distance between themselves and the series of inevitable RTAs.
This last week they have been strongly pushing the line that the fault lies with employers, who are asked to check the immigration status of would-be employees, when the forged documents readily obtainable by illegal immigrants would pass muster with the Home Office's own staff -- because usually they have no forgery training, and couldn't even spot reproductions of their own paperwork. (Anyway, caseworkers are instructed not to check all of the supposedly required documentation, and are still subject to ceilings of very low refusal rates for applications, and consequently a large proportion of officially approved migrants are in fact illegals.) How are employers supposed to be able to do what is a Home Office function but which the Home Office can't manage itself?
But wait a minute. It's not the employers here. It's neither the employers nor Jacqui's lackeys. The checking was (supposed to be) done by a Home Office quango: the Security Industries Authority. 'Quasi autonomous' does have a certain Home Office ring to it -- as when the Immigration & Nationality Directorate was made 'semi-autonomous' from the Home Office and renamed the Borders and Immigration Agency (BIA). That is, for the benefit of the media it was towed out into the English Channel and ceremonially sunk. The beauty of a quango is that it's neither inside nor outside the tent. There's nobody on the outside to cause a fuss and spill the beans, yet nobody on the inside to get wet (to allude to Roosevelt's famous quip). It is the tent; part of it.

Regarding those 'heavies': the farce of 'removals' is a particular embarrassment the BIA is thankful to palm off. As ex-Immigration Service staff have revealed, a 'removal' is a purely administrative term and does not at all mean that someone has been excluded from the country. (This now applies even to the rarer from of exclusion: deportation. Removals and deportation officers tell me that many people who are down as deported are still walking the streets.)
Escorting unwilling subjects to unhappy commercial carriers is a thankless and often fruitless task that inevitably entails violence at times. Being hands-off and eyes averted not only keeps the Home Office free of the legal morass through alleged mistreatment such as hit the news this week, but hides behind sub-contractors not doing the job, the fraud of how 'removals' are recorded.

Employers have for some time been a convenient scapegoat. The fiasco of non-regulation of migrant workers was evident during the emergence of the scandal over those from soon-to-be EU states. Firms such as the one run by Victor and Jason Cox and another advised by Christopher Monckton (the former advisor to Margaret Thatcher) approached the Home Office because they were tired of having to field applications from illegals and wanted to be sure they were operating within the law. With agreement from the Home Office they recruited individuals with the relevant documentation, which they offered to send in, but this was declined. Next thing these firms knew were police raids. The Coxes are now in Maidstone jail serving seven year stretches. Why, when they only ever co-operated with the authorities?
They were an easy hit, to make the Home Office look like they're doing something about illegal migration. Just as with the girls 'rescued' in raids on massage parlours, most of whom turned out to be legal EU immigrants and none were 'trafficked' -- the ostensible purpose of the raids.
Evidently, beyond some thin PR the Government doesn't want to actually tackle illegal migrant employment, being content to ignore social consequences and side with less responsible business elements in a free-for-all. Just as it throws its hands in the air regarding expulsions. Both are not solvable given that every other aspect of the 'system' doesn't work.

The Home Secretary faced the music all on her own this week. In all the fiasco we haven't heard anything from the actual immigration minister -- and who's even heard of her? After Jacqui Smith's acrimonious divorce from any truth at the despatch box on Tuesday, she is now more completely hitched to her Department in being nothing if not a running joke. There will be new lows.

Steve Moxon

A major stage in Government meltdown on immigration

2007-11-06T16:03:00.000Z

If the Government cannot tell us, give or take 700,000 or 800,000, even how many legal and officially working new migrants are here; then how can there be any handle at all on overall totals of arrivals in recent years? On top of the 1.5 or 1.6 million the Government finally admits to, there are all of the illegals, and then the majority of legitimate new entrants who don't work.

And you can bet that however revised are the figures for workers, it will still be a case of the wool being pulled over our eyes. Are those from new EU countries who haven't voluntarily registered included? And the self-employed? They certainly don't include those working in the black economy. And, of course, any figure doesn't include the dependents of workers. (And how do they count those who have fraudulently obtained National Insurance numbers? Or those who don't co-operate with surveys?)

Councils like that of Slough can claim 'I told you so'. And these questions have new resonance with the alarming projections of future population growth by 20 million we were given a week ago. The Government has no policy whatsoever on this.

We may well ask what if anything the Government does know, and what the Government is for. Well, a good kicking, as, inevitably, everyone wises up to the bigger picture of just what a disaster is UK immigration.
The problem is far bigger than just the scale of migration by those who have an above-board presence in the economy, and the impact they have on unemployment and wages (and that is serious enough: an EU study in 2003 showed that for every 100 new working migrants, 83 workers of the host community eventually lost their jobs; and most new entrants are usually earning so little that they are net tax-benefits takers). What about not just those who are in the hidden economy, but those who don't work -- the majority of new arrivals? But especially, what about those who shouldn't be here in Britain at all?

Until recently, discussion of the immigration disaster was sidelined by focus on the relatively small problem of asylum -- everything indeed is relative, as they say. Even at its height, when new claimants were coming in at close to 100,000 annually, this was but a fraction of even official migration rates. Now focus is on legal and working migrants, but this is to ignore not just the fact that four out of every five legitimate migrants come here not primarily to work, but the huge, unquantified number who come here illegally.

This last is the big bogey for the Government, because so far it hasn't dared even to make a proper guess. There IS a guess, but it's a deliberately useless one. This is the mantra-like 600,000 tossed forth; usually with a 'health warning' that it's an upper estimate. This figure is laughably low. It's a guess of the number of illegals compared to legals at the end of the last century, before the massive rises in annual inflows under Labour. And, as usual, it doesn't even include non-workers or dependents. What's more, it's based on a hopeless international comparison that produces a figure for Britain of only a fraction of what it must be.

Rowntrees' pastiche of a survey: more hopeless immigration data

2007-05-29T18:34:00.001+01:00

The latest survey of the intentions of migrants is as misleading as you might expect. The pretence is that -- albeit a much bigger proportion than previously had been thought -- only a minority of migrants intend to stay in Britain permanently, but once you look closely at the survey, the reality is that likely the majority are here to stay.

This is to be expected given that the one publicised today is by the Rowntree Foundation, which has form in recently recommending that failed asylum seekers should be allowed to work.
First, it entirely ignores the source of most settlement: those outside the EU from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa.

Second, the problem of finding respondents massively skews the survey results. The very people who are intending to stay are the ones least likely to be easily found or to agree to an interview, or to tell the truth. This is presumably a main reason why two in every three of those first contacted had gone to ground and were lost from the survey in the follow-up just eight months later.
The skew is particularly true of this survey because it is an old one: based on interviews with migrants BEFORE their countries acceded to the EU in May 2004. Ask those in the much bigger influx post accession, who are aware of their full right to be here, and they will much more likely be coming here for keeps, and be more willing to say so. Most of those who came from places like Poland before May 2004 had come in as bogus self-employed people under the ECAA scheme (that I had revealed to be a total sham); so they had much to hide re how they had hoodwinked the immigration authorities.

The hopeless under-estimation of problems that this survey shows is indicated by a ridiculously small estimate of the totals of Poles here in Britain. When BBC Newsnight interviewed the main rep for Polish migrants in London in July last year, he told them that there were about a million of his fellow countryman then living across the UK who had arrived since May 2004 (including the ECAA so-called self-employed who had come here ahead of this date).

What was not prominent in the publicity for the Rowntree findings was that even of those who had gone home, 90% were planning to return.

This travesty of a survey points up yet again the dire need for an independent research body to provide immigration data that people can start believing.

Immigration harms the poor: it's official. No 'points' in doing something about it.

2007-04-20T20:27:00.000+01:00

At last an immigration minister admits that mass immigration harms the poor. Liam Byrne's comments this week come in a report Rethinking Immigration and Integration: A New Centre-Left Agenda to be published at the end of the month. Coincidentally, the long trumpeted 'points' system for immigration that was to be rolled out this week has been delayed: until the same date. Mind you, after the recent set of inept Home Office proposals, 'Enforcing the Rules', we should not be surprised at a delay.

Economists with expertise in migration have always pointed out that a big influx must mean lower wages and unemployment. The most recent research (2003) shows that across the EU for every hundred new migrant workers, 83 native workers eventually are displaced.

Immigration 'points' is pure spin and is not in any way going to solve the problem. Where I worked in Managed Migration, we dealt with well over half a million applications annually: many more than Work Permits UK handled; and we granted almost all of them. According to Migrationwatch, only one in five migrants come here to work. There are all sorts of routes for legal migration, none of which a 'points' system will shut down; and regarding those who are coming here specifically to work, we already have a 'work permits' system that is supposed to do just what is advocated by a 'points' system.

'Points' are not going to clamp down on those coming here as bogus marriage partners, bogus students, and the myriad other categories people so easily hoodwink the authorities to so portray themselves when actually they are illegal economic migrants. This is quite apart from the now millions of illegal migrants we have -- not least because we can't be bothered even to note let alone to track arrivals/departures. The immigration figures also out this week show that the bulk of official settlement is through 'family reunion'.

'Points' will apply to those who are dealt with already by Work Permits UK. This is the part of the Immigration & Nationality Directorate that supposedly brings in people our economy needs. It is the organisation that brought us hordes of IT professionals when native British IT professionals were emigrating in droves. Like the rest of the IND it doesn't work. It would help if it properly checked that those it gives work permits to, actually turn up to the specific job they have supposedly accepted. It would also help if checks were made to ensure that employers first had tried to find staff locally. In any case, there is a supply of millions of unnecessary migrant workers both legal and illegal quite outside the 'work permits' route.

The big long-term problem Britain faces, according to Frank Field MP, is low productivity: low output per worker. In the last few years we have imported millions of people who, if they work at all, are unskilled and semi-skilled. This is to import people and at the same time to export jobs. Our native workers either lose their jobs or their pay falls. This impacts much more on those already near the bottom of the employment heap. These people then ask themselves the question: why work?

The collapse in incentives to work is made worse by the drying up of training opportunities. It is because employers can so easily source abroad that they have given up training. Poaching from other firms became all the rage but then all firms stopped bothering to train and now everyone looks to Poland and elsewhere overseas. New Labour's Education! Education! Education! is all about sending most people to university who should instead be given vocational training to fill the skills gaps employers complain about.

The Home Office's 'Enforcing the Rules' report was a classic but all too usual product of that Department. What it says on the outside is the very opposite of what it contains. It is clear that there will be little in the way of any enforcing of rules: instead there will be buck passing to employers, banks, and other agencies, without proper partnership agreements; and no proper systems to check applications for National Insurance numbers, benefits and the like. When the proposal for immigration 'points' finally emerges, we will see that we are not going to get any substantial change in the rules either.

It's business as usual re immigration at the Home Office, whatever are the words of the immigration minister. And actually, the words of the minister in the Rethinking Immigration report bar the headline quotes are the usual economically illiterate rhetoric about how supposedly mass immigration is good for us. In the various essays in this very long report there is an admission that the Left got it wrong, and how bad is political correctness. The analysis goes nothing like far enough. It is the backlash by the Left against ordinary people that is the root of the complete failure by the Government to control our borders. The Left will never admit that their 'peoples movement' has turned into the movement that hates its own people.

The Home Office is multliply split already

2007-03-29T18:27:00.000+01:00

The Home Office will never be successfully reformed (not in the quite long-term foreseeable future), and splitting in the way proposed will make non-communication between the different sub-departments even worse than it is already.

The core problems at the Home Office are a combination of profound lack of confidence (in anything but 'watch your back') and will -- other than to perpetrate political correctness fascism -- that is both 'institutional' and the product of the collective mindsets of the employees; together with a range of deeply engrained major management and culture failings; all exacerbated by government target setting and interference.

Most obviously, everything concerning immigration does not work, and it is necessary that the parts of the Home Office and the DWP (the near non-existent checking re NINO and benefit applications) that currently don't work and don't talk to each other, are forced together. A new department, ideally; with a database of full immigration histories of all applications for government services at its core (we are going to have the ID card database whether we like it or not, plus biometric passports). This would be an 'internal gateway' system to make up for the complete failure of external borders for which there is no fix in sight. in this way, the millions of those here illegally now, and -- even more so -- the many more millions who will otherwise come to Britain (because of the multiple unique pull factors that the UK has compared to other developed countries) will not easily be able to make a life for themselves and can therefore be dissuaded from staying/coming. The huge social and economic costs of failing to do this are incalculable.

This is a relevant extract from the new edition of my book, The Great Immigration Scandal:

Understanding the origin of the astonishing attitude of the political classes is a key to understanding what has gone wrong with the IND and with the Home Office as a whole, and why it is that John Reid can openly slap down his own department as 'dysfunctional' and 'not fit for purpose' and be largely correct. It is increasingly recognised that the origins of the Home Office's woes go far back, albeit appallingly exacerbated by New Labour's cavalier attitude to immigration levels, and its news management 'target culture' hold over the civil service. The question of the cause of the great immigration scandal is sometimes posed as a choice between:

(a) The deliberate (but carefully concealed) policy of ex-socialist internationalists to undermine traditional English culture and nationhood (hence the enthusiasm for the EU).
(b) The control of inflation by importing cheap labour, thereby overcoming Labour's historic record of economic incompetence.
(c) The incapacity of Whitehall to deliver on policy issues (or to organise a proverbial p***-** in a brewery).

Well it's a bit of each and it's also more complicated than that, not least in that all three are linked. Recent years have witnessed the appointment in high places of those whose politics accords with our Left-orientated political masters; who might be considered good at radical thinking but are useless at radical action: certainly not the sort of drastic remedies required for the practical running of a large organisation that is drifting toward the rocks.* Compounding this is the creaking old style of public administration, overwhelmed by the demands of the modern world - hardly unforeseeable when you consider how senior civil servants are selected and rewarded. How does Oxbridge brilliance in the classics provide a remotely adequate test of the managerial skills needed for policy delivery? Many Sir Humphreys have no practical experience at all, having been fast-tracked straight from the elite universities. It is well-known in the senior civil service that the management skills needed to deliver services at the coal-face don't tend to be rewarded, just as academics are not valued for their teaching ability. An internal civil service staff survey found that in the Home Office just six percent of staff thought that poor performance was dealt with effectively. A major IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research) report in August 2006 found a dire problem across the civil service in the absence of external public accountability and effective performance management.

There are also major problems endemic in civil service (and particularly in Home Office) culture that are the same as those that bedevil individuals within the political classes generally - and I don't mean merely the prioritizing of presentation over content. There is a chasm between themselves and ordinary people; a complete failure to understand how ordinary people live their lives. Specifically there is the leftist do-gooder's inability to grasp the central concept of 'the tragedy of the commons'. There is also a much more serious chasm in the stance of 'political correctness fascism': the great backlash against ordinary people by the political Left that leads to absurdities such as the assumption of the inalienable entitlement of overseas nationals to settle here taking precedence over the rights and interests of British citizens. It is convenient to mask utter failure with the great imperative of the day - 'equal opportunities and diversity' (EO&D). The Home Office, being the lead department in government in this regard, has disappeared down a blind alley, treating EO&D as an end in itself and a raison d'etre for its existence. The joke recently circulating is that the whole department is being run and staffed as if full of 1970s sociology graduates. It is in a very real sense a retreat from not just commercial reality but from all reality.

The sacked Tory and the punched woman: anti-racism hysteria IS racism

2007-03-09T23:32:00.000Z

The sacked Tory front-bencher, Mercer, of course had not said anything that was, or even could be conceived to be, racist. The Tory high command in sacking him disingenuously got round that Mercer had done nothing inherently wrong by claiming that he had "given the impression that racism was acceptable". But not only had Mercer not done that either, he had correctly pointed out that team building involves mutual 'wind up', and taunts of all kinds; and that what may seem to be racism was in fact no such thing. He very clearly spelt it out with his direct comparison of 'fat bastard', 'ginger bastard' and black bastard'.

Now, with this, the whole argument inverts: by viewing a taunt of 'black bastard' as somehow special, then because all taunting and 'wind up' is now viewed as bullying and prejudice, then necessarily the taunts to do with fatness, gingerness, or, indeed, whiteness: all these are thereby diminished in seriousness. Inevitably, either the rendering special of taunts re blackness, and/or conversly the rendering trivial of taunts re anything but blackness, is itself racist: to non-blacks -- that is, to other ethnic minorities not classed specifically as black, as well as to whites.

The logic collapses because of a failure to understand human social psychology of in-group/out-group, whereby any distinguishing feature can and will be used as the basis of conflict, either constructive or destructive. There is nothing 'special' about what may be construed as racism -- and this goes irrespective of whether such an epithet is appropriate or misconstrued.

This is what I was writing about in The Great Immigration Scandal, in the chapter on anti-racism hysteria.

The real irony is that most media commentators and the Tory party are the racists here.

This is exactly parallelled by the current story about the black woman punched by a policeman. Here the media are being racist (and sexist) by singling out a black woman as so deserving of special treatment that the story is given main headline status.

The most interesting aspect of that story is .....
would it have been a top news story if the victim had been:
(a) male?
(b) not of an ethnic minority (crudely: not white)?
(c) both male and 'white'?

Obviously not, or there would be countless instances regularly in news bulletins, such is the pervasiveness of CCTV in city centres and outside nightclubs; and necessarily regular use of force by police officers to subdue violent drunks -- and likely more than there used to be, given the 'risk averse' virus that the police have caught along with the other authorities.

The media would appear to be guilty of either sexism or racism; or, more probably, both.

The media really can't hide behind 'news values' -- what appeals to people as 'news': they are here going well out of their way to go beyond reflecting popular concern to actively promote the notion that we should have concern for female and/or ethnic minority victims in contrast to what we should feel for male and/or non-ethnic minority victims.

This is a beautiful illustration of what social science research shows: that violence against men is in many situations not seen as a crime (by anyone: men or women, witnesses and -- often -- the victims themselves), whereas violence towards women is always seen as a crime -- by anyone and everyone.

This is a generic problem with media output, (as campaigners have more specifically and repeatedly highlighted re domestic violence). This instance shows that this kind of prejudice and discrimination against men and non-ethnic minorities (crudely: whites) is a very wide and deeply entrenched phenomenon.

To understand what's going on taking in the dimension of race as well as sex, you have to look at political correctness fascism. This is the appalling state into which the political Left (which is now the position of all of the establishment) has descended of contempt for ordinary people as a predictable if bizarre backlash against their own failure. This explains the elevation of anyone who belongs to a minority sub-group to be considered more worthy than the people who previously had been championed: 'the workers'. But that's another big debate, and one I've touched on before.

Not 'Enforcing the Rules', just 'enabling compliance'

2007-03-08T15:36:00.000Z

We are well used to the Kafkaesque titling of Home Office reports so that they are the obverse of what they contain, so we should all savour the major set of immigration proposals out this week, Enforcing the Rules.
The proclamation that "we will ensure that the right systems and controls are in place is not accompanied by even an outline of any system to achieve the main object: of preventing those not entitled to government services from accessing them. A trumpeted supposed tightening up of giving out National Insurance numbers by the DWP apparently is merely ad hoc spotting of a few suspicious applications by some DWP staff who might then refer to the IND. This 'reform' led to less than 400 instances of the denial of NI cards last year, instead of the many thousands any proper procedure would be expected to uncover. It is no system at all.

John Reid's unfit-for-purpose Department has so little idea of what to do that "best approaches to harm reduction", as they refer to their initiatives, require three pilot schemes in local areas, and other pilot schemes regarding how to combat abuse of NHS services. Even the rules of NHS access are under review and not set to report back until October.

A major part of this half-baked plan is to use NHS staff, banks and employers, etc, as "partners" of the new Border and Immigration Agency: gate-keepers, in other words, to do the Home Office's job for them. Or, rather, to carry the can for the Home Office's failure in and refusal to carry out its function.

The name of the game -- in opposition to Reid's introduction where he frankly talks about the adverse impact on indigenous workers -- is to avoid in any way blaming the illegal economic migrant and to focus on the "harm" caused by others; notably employers. A "one-stop identity checking service for employers" looks like actually inadequate advice re spotting forgery -- for which the Home Office fails to train its own staff -- with any checking of specific individuals not routine.

Dripping with extreme complacency about overstayers, clandestine entry, NHS abuse, sham marriages and bogus students (now officially a third of applications); the main thrust of Enforcing the Rules is to "enable compliance". If only all migrants could be helped not to break the rules then all would be well! They are all victims, you understand. Mr Reid states bizarrely that three-quarters of illegal migrants are 'trafficked'. On what evidence? Clearly, most come here of their own accord -- not least the prostitutes; like the all but five actually 'trafficked' women found despite all the fuss over the World Cup in Germany. Reid also claims that most migrants are here legally, yet the Government has not the vaguest clue how many illegals are resident, and whether or not they outnumber legal entrants.

This is, as we expect, all so much Home Office "information management", with the usual chimera of a 'points system', which is merely repackaging of what we already have; and completely false promises about removal/deportation, with here disturbingly an intimation that only those that cause the most "harm" are to be so dealt with.

Enforcing the Rules is much more like paying lip service to them. John Reid would do well to read what his staff have produced and then go back to them to ask why it does not reflect what he aired in the piece he wrote to front it.

Big Brother anti-racism hysteria

2007-01-19T12:46:00.000Z

Calling a woman from India an Indian is racism simply because the remark was made by someone white? And an alleged assault on a non-white by Janet Street Porter is racism because she too is white?

Not only is none of this (based on what we so far know) in any way at all racism, but indeed it IS racism to so construe a quite ordinary comment or assault by those thereby deemed actually guilty of nothing more than having a white skin.

That a lousy and failing reality TV series has prompted unprecedented numbers of complaints and moves to discuss motions in the Commons -- not to mention an inter-governmental row -- serves to highlight how utterly crazy anti-racism hysteria has become.

The furore stems entirely from the assumption that the feelings behind what is not in itself racist nevertheless renders the innocuous deeply offensive. However much we dont like the bullying lout, Jade Goody, and hardly less the prat behind yoof TV; they have done absolutely nothing -- so far as has emerged -- that is anything more reprehensible than delivering common insult and (allegedly) common assault.

Even the comment about Bollywood star Silpa Shettys hand was not in the ballpark of beyond the pale, as it were. And that would have been true even if the joke had stemmed from the fact that traditionally people of some Asian cultures are known to use one hand to wipe the anus after defecation. As it was, the ignorant BB housemates were evidently unaware of this and instead had simply referenced eating with fingers.

Being bored silly in the BB fishbowl with nothing to do but cook, insults were mainly culinary it seems. It was also reckoned that Indians are thin because they dont cook food properly. These are questions for food hygienists and chefs with expertise in a variety of cuisines; not for politicians, let alone the police.

One of the cabal of supposedly offending women -- a non-entity called Danielle -- was hauled in to the BB diary room and asked if she has said that Silpa should go home. The hapless youngster admitted to going with the crowd and that she hadnt meant it. Clearly she knew that racism was being hinted at, and just as clearly she had merely meant that Silpa should leave the BB house. Yet racism stayed as heavy subtext to the discussion. Big Brother really lived up to its name at this juncture.

It is a guffaw inducing irony that of all organisations Channel 4 is in the dock. Rightly it defended that there had been a clash that was not racist but merely about culture and class. A spokesman for JSP cited her public record on anti-racism, as if hysterical anti-racism is itself any defence. We live in the post-MacPherson world: any incident is officially deemed to be racist on the say-so of anyone deeming themselves the victim, or by anyone who witnessed it. Absolute lunacy. In any case, Shilpa is on record as saying that she did not consider Jade and Danielle's attack as racist. That leaves those BB viewers who sent in complaints. Pehaps we should use the more TV interactive viewers of Emmerdale to redaft the law on robbery or fraud?

If we cant call an Indian and Indian, then we cant call a Canadian a Canadian. We are already absolutely forbidden to call a Pakistan a Paki, yet Australians are always known as Aussies.

Wait for the backlash. It's coming. Anti-racist hysteria is anti-integration and deadening to the human spirit. The only place for it is as laughing stock. Being able to wind each other up is essential for social interaction, and all the idiots in politics and the media had better get wize to this and fast.

Hiding what's wrong inside the Home Office

2007-01-19T12:31:00.000Z

The plot thickens inside the Home Office. Not only is it a freedom of information black hole, even (we have seen again this week) to ministers, the Public Accounts Committee, and the leader of the opposition at PMQs; but now apparently there is the tactic of pre-emptive suspension of officials to keep the lid on embarrassing failure.

Brazenly refusing to reveal the identity of their latest suspendee, the Home Office in referring to him/her as 'high ranking' (which could mean anything) would like us to think that a senior figure has been put on ice on the grounds of incompetence. Much more likely, the suspension is before another 'whistle-blowing' case could befall them, outside the 'inquiry' currently underway into the latest twist of the ongoing foreign prisoner debacle.

If they hadn't gone for suspension, then this official could have done what I did and come forward under the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. That the Department now has a tactic of pre-emption in this regard was revealed by how one of my ex-colleagues was treated as soon as he began mildly questioning some practice -- the hopelessness of deportation procedure, and how the figures for deportation are a fraud. My own case was cited and they accused him of planning to go to the media. He wasn't suspended, but he only avoided this by convincing them that he was fully 'on-side'.

With an impressive track record of inquiries that are total 'whitewash' and scapegoating, the Home Office is keen to keep buried the foreign prisoners scandal which keeps threatening to revive. That is why the inquiry is being conducted by the Home Office's own head of personnel. The scandal is the complete failure to have any means of keeping tabs on anybody. This time it is our own nationals who had been imprisoned abroad, and most recently before this was the case of the missing killer of PC Beshenivksy. On that occasion Government 'intelligence sources' -- Home Office and/or Number Ten spin merchants, in other words -- put about the notion that the elusive killer must have fled abroad hidden in female Islamic dress, when of course the real story is that the Home Office has no way to track him down because there is no system in place for doing so.

Reminding us of this would prompt renewed questions as to the whereabouts of the great bulk of the two thousand or so foreign prisoners that John Reid had assured us he would move heaven and earth to find. They have not been found and are never likely to be. This scandal is where John Reid came in and it remains where he could very well go out. It is also where at last some very senior Home Office personnel could themselves find themselves exited.

Given how leaky the Home Office is -- the media have all sorts of internal sources -- we'll soon know who is the suspended official, but it is astonishing that the Home Office think they can justify keeping his identity secret just to keep the lid on incompetence. Not incompetence by the official in question, of course, but the Department's.