Steve Moxon blog

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

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.

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