Thursday, October 22, 2009

 

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

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.


Thursday, October 08, 2009

 

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

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.


Friday, September 18, 2009

 

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

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.

Sunday, August 09, 2009

 

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



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

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

 

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

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


Wednesday, December 03, 2008

 

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

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


Saturday, November 22, 2008

 

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

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.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?