Steve Moxon blog

Ex-Border Force chief's a gonner

2011-11-22T14:24:00.001Z

Confirmation that the self-resigned head of the UK Border Force, Brodie Clark, is toast, has just come from the grilling by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee of the Home Office Permanent Secretary, Helen Ghosh, and then of Damian Green, the immigration Minister.

The 2007 operational instructions to allow non-routine relaxation of checking in certain circumstances we now know were known as 'Howie' (if I've spelt that right). It'll be a pompous acronym for something very dodgy. Anyone any guesses? 'Home Office walk-in immigration excuse'?

It turns out that they were not known about either by ministers or (supposedly) the heads of the Borders & Immigration Agency right from back in 2007. So the

BIA /Home Office at some high level (not excluding the very top) were actively hiding it from ministers.

And well they might. It turns out that 'Howie' applies only to EU citizens, and therefore Brodie Clark cannot hide behind 'Howie' with respect to any form of relaxation of checks on non-EU nationals, even if 'health & safety' concerns had triggered the recourse to 'Howie'.

That biometrics were not in place in 2007 and consequently could not be explicitly covered in 'Howie' is neither here nor there, because implicitly there was no guidance of any kind (whether unknown or known to ministers and Home Office top brass) re non-EU citizens; and also beside the point is the abuse of the guidelines to make routine what was intended to be a downgrade in checks only in an emergency. There was no scope at all for what Brodie Clark did.

So he's a gonner.

The issue then is how on earth could, supposedly, nobody senior to him not have discovered in four whole years what was going on? It was not until the most recent inspection by the independent Inspector, John Vine, that it came to light.

Either the Home Office is lying or it's incredibly incompetent.

This was the issue back in 2004 regarding what I exposed -- total incompetence and blatant lying.

It looks very much like a set-up under the previous (Labour) administration akin to the crime boss who gives an instruction on the understanding that it's not traceable back to him, and that he doesn't want to know the methods required to carry it out.

Or was it that the higher echelons of the Civil Service, with their facility to second-guess ministerial political aims, were doing the dirty work without actual instruction?

Well, as mired in PC as is the Conservative Party, they're out of whack with the insanely PC Home Office; so the cosy pulling the wool over the eyes of the public is not quite so easy now.

Weasel words from the Borders Agency (Brodie Clark) reveal the truth

2011-11-15T13:16:00.001Z

So the UK is (supposedly) no-go for terrorists and serious criminals (mostly, at least) but OK for illegal migrants: that, in a nutshell is the attitude of the Borders & Immigration Agency, judging by the weasel answers of ex-Border Force chief Brodie Clark in answer to questions just now from the Home Affairs Commons Select Committee. And our old friend elf 'n safety can justify removal of checks, apparently; whenever queues start to form.

Brodie Clark was specifically asked if he had thought to tell the Home Secretary of the guidance allowing relaxed or no checking, that had been in operation, unknown to ministers (as we learnt this last weekend) since 2007 …..

"No".

No!

As the questioner then pointed out: this makes irrelevant the issue re the 'pilot' to which the Home Secretary was asked to agree, in that checks in any case had been and continued to be relaxed to a far greater extent and several years before the current 'pilot' was even thought of.

Clark had to admit that after he had leaned earlier this year of the suspension of fingerprint checks, that he "did not stop it", even though was relying on guidance from 2007 that did not even refer to fingerprinting, given that this did not come in until 2010.

The Home Office and the BIA have been hiding behind guidance in respect of checking against the 'warnings index' so as to reduce checking down to this low level instead of maintaining full immigration checks.

The upshot is that we don't have a border that excludes illegal migrants and visa fraudsters.

This is what is meant by the buzz-phrase "risk-led" to describe an approach purporting to increase UK security.

Security is – that is, should be – not merely about trying on a percentage basis to target resources variably so as to exclude serious criminals: it is – that is, it should be – concerned with generally excluding those who have no right to enter and to remain in the UK. All those who are in various ways illegals.

This is the nearest we have thus far come to the chickens coming home to roost at the Home Office. The whole upper echelons of the Home Office and the BIA (up to and including Helen Ghosh, the Permanent Secretary) are culpable for the enormous strategic – not merely operational – non-system of immigration control. But who is going to carry the can? Will it just be Brodie Clark as fall guy? Will even Clark wriggle free?

Why the Home Office doesn't control immigration

2011-11-15T09:26:00.001Z

As ever, there are still further revelations (over the weekend, of no checks at ports of entry) regarding the non-system of UK immigration control. As I have long predicted, there is no bottom to this perennial story. BBC Today contacted me asking what I thought was wrong with the Home Office, so I expanded on my point that within the Home Office there is a firm conviction that immigration is an insoluble problem.

The Home Office essentially is the arm of government concerned with law and order, and this is very much about justice being seen to be done. Policing arose out of the community, and without the community officials are in a very poor position to deal with the great bulk of crime. Now that we have no community worth the name, then law enforcement is akin to gesture-politics. An example is made of the tiny proportion of offences and offenders law enforcement agencies actually manage to tackle, and it is merely hoped that this acts as a general deterrent.

It is but a short step to then subsume all effort under 'news management', and with the new politics that arrived with a vengeance under Tony Blair this is in sync with ministerial aims.

Providing great momentum to this was the compete capitulation of the establishment across the board to 'political correctness', with the Home Office especially transformed by this, in that it was deemed the lead organisation in government re 'equal opportunities and diversity' [sic].

Yes, all other tentacles of government were also afflicted, and this fed a diffusion of responsibility and the collapse of what used to be the buzz-phrase, 'joined-up thinking'. So it is that we still do not have what I have termed an 'internal gateway' so that the millions (and we are talking millions, not hundreds of thousand) of illegals and fraudulent putative legals are allowed then to access benefits and obtain National Insurance numbers.

The DWP still has no system in place whereby routinely applications are checked against records of immigration status. Far from galvanising the Home Office to stem the ever springing leaks in the immigration control bucket, it seems to reinforce an institutional shrugging of the shoulders: 'its not me guv'; just look at the DWP.

'Political correctness' is the great backlash by the elite against the masses for their failure to buy the 'progressive project' – Marxism, essentially; this manifesting in particular as withdrawing the sense of upholding rights of the host citizenry and instead giving rights to those who are not of our culture.

Let me explain. The complete failure of the political-Left ethos – for some time now the outlook of pretty well everyone in the government-media-education uber-class -- has led to what psychologists term 'cognitive-dissonance', which is salved by transferring blame from one's own sense of gullibility (for swallowing a clearly bogus theory) to those who would have benefited, supposedly, if they had taken the prescription -- 'the workers' who would have been 'liberated'. A stereotypical worker is male and white, and hence new abstractions from society had to be imagined who were deserving of 'liberation'. Any half-plausible 'victims' would do, and this is what lies behind the focus on women and ethnic minority and the obsession with anti-sexism and and anti-racism.

The migrant stereotypically is of an ethnic minority, and so it is that the rights of migrants are now asserted over those of the host population; as in the mantra at the Home Office within the Borders & Immigration Agency: "we are in the business of granting".

It was named the Immigration & Nationality Directorate when I was working there, but this name change was just more window-dressing. The BIA as with the IND is part of the Home Office that, because it is the source of endless problems for ministers and mandarins, has been hived off as a quasi-autonomous agency.

News management driving further window-dressing was also behind the much-lauded introduction of the 'points system'. This was nothing more than simply fusing Managed Migration (the backroom operation administering immigration applications, where I worked) with Work Permits UK, and meaninglessly categorising the unchanged operations within those organisations under 'tiers'. No operational changes were made of any substance.

It is never any surprise, then, that you-couldn't-make-it-up stories are always flowing out of the Home Office regarding immigration. Ministers as ever are hapless, and so are their opposite-number critics. Yvette Cooper last week was asked by an interviewer on BBC Today that if she was so concerned about border checks then what about the situation whereby anyone can simply fly into Dublin and cross the border into the UK without any checks. She was completely flustered. That such an obvious ridiculous loophole in immigration controls can exist speaks volumes about the attitude of the Home Office.

Morale across the whole BIA and especially in the front-line Border Force has been and continues to be at rock bottom; not least under the assault of cuts in staffing numbers. Even before any cuts there are near order-of-magnitude deficits in the numbers of front-line immigration officers that would be required to seek illegals and remove [sic], never mind actually deport them.

As for our current Home Secretary, Teresa May: is she seriously claiming that it took her eighteen months to wake up to the fact that we have in effect no immigration control system? How, given the ignominious history of the Home Office, could she possibly think that agreeing to a pilot scheme to relax controls wouldn't be a case of giving an inch that resulted in the taking of a mile? How hapless can you get?

At least we have a Home Secretary who says she wants to control immigration. In my day, the then Home Secretary – David Blunkett – stated openly that he saw no ceiling to the growth of mass immigration. Both he and the then immigration minister, Beverly Hughes, actually colluded with Home Office failure. The only thing that Beverley Hughes stated in her memos to us that she was interested in was facilitating the entry of women who claimed (that is, merely claimed: no evidence required) that they had been subjected to domestic violence!

Such is the depth of the catastrophe that is the Home Office that nothing short of a root-and-branch reform is necessary, but this presupposes a radical change in political will of which none of the three PC-overwhelmed main political parties are capable.

Why the Home Office doesn't control immigration

2011-11-15T06:59:00.000Z

It is but a short step to then subsume all effort under 'news management', and with the new politics that arrived with a vengeance under Tony Blair this is in sync with ministerial aims.

It is never any surprise, then, that you-couldn't-make-it-up stories are always flowing out of the Home Office regarding immigration. Ministers as ever are hapless, and so are their opposite-number critics. Yvette Cooper last week was asked by an interviewer on BBC Today that if she was so concerned about border checks then what about the situation whereby anyone can simply fly into Dublin and cross the border into the UK without any checks. She was completely flustered. That such an obvious ridiculous loophole in immigration controls, can exist speaks volumes about the attitude of the Home Office.

Morale across the whole BIA and especially in the front-line Border Force has been and continues to be at rock bottom; not least under the assault of staff cuts in staffing numbers. Even before any cuts there are near order-of-magnitude deficit in the numbers of front-line immigration officers that would be required to seek illegals and remove [sic], never mind actually deport them.

Borders Agency latest exposé: 3

2011-11-09T06:27:00.001Z

So, a no-checks policy at ports-of-entry goes back to 2008/2009. That's the bombshell dropped by Brodie Clark, the suspended and now self-sacked Border Force chief. It seems, then, that the hapless Home Secretary made the naive, fatal error of assuming that the Borders & Immigration Agency actually works; that it actually carries out any sort of effective border control.

Naturally, nobody normally would assume that an organisation could so self-undermine its own brief, but the BIA and the Home Office does not accept that immigration control is something that can be done. It therefore runs what it imagines appears from a distance to be just about a plausible excuse for an immigration system, with the odd media stunt and lots of news management. But that's it.

The Borders & Immigration Agency is akin to all those blow-up fake tanks and wooden aircraft mock-ups that were set up near Dover to con the Germans towards the end of World war II that D-Day would be across the Dover Straits. The actual invasion force was further down the south coast massing in preparation to hit Normandy, of course. Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down there, because we don't have the equivalent of the real invasion force. We have only the Border Force mock-up. We don't have the real immigration control and administration service.

The chickens are staring to come home to roost regarding the most senior figures at the BIA / Home Office. After all, Brodie Clark himself headed up the branch of the BIA responsible for ports-of-entry. But the culprits higher up than Brodie Clark seem to be making him the fall guy: The new BIA chief executive, Rob Whiteman, has gone on record that Brodie Clark told him that he had exceeded Teresa May's instructions. Well of course he must have done so, if a no-checks policy was already in place long before Mrs May's Government had even been elected!

The UK Borders & Immigration Agency now has to suspend its own bosses: 2

2011-11-07T12:15:00.001Z

This latest in the interminable line of immigration fiascos has distinct echoes of the scandal I myself exposed back in 2004, when instruction from on high was to waive all checks on immigration applications in our 'back-room' office of Managed Migration. The Home Office line was that this was down to rogue local management, when clearly it came from the top brass – the Immigration & Nationality Directorate (as it was called then: it's now the Borders & Immigration Agency) and Home Office top management and mandarins. There was a traditional whitewash report (the Sutton Report) to officially clear them. The ministers (Beverley Hughes and David Blunkett) were hopelessly out of their depth, and giving support through their 'political-correctness' ethos.

The difference, evidently, between the latest debacle and the one I was involved in exposing, is that the seniority of the staff they suspend has ascended the Home Office greasy pole. Now, instead of local managers at Sheffield Managed Migration (and the minion who 'whistle-blew': yours truly), instead it's Brodie Clark, the head guy of the section of the Borders & Immigration Agency in charge of ports-of-entry.

I suppose, for such a non-functioning dog's dinner job as is UK immigration control, that this is an advance!

At root is the Home Office firm belief that immigration is an insoluble problem, together with the ethos of 'political-correctness', of course. But politicians are often complicit. It was under the previous Conservative Government (the one immediately before Blair came to power), with Michael Howard at the Home Office helm, that EU passport holders were first waived through passport control.

With a bit of luck there will be clear fingerprints of Home Office top brass at the scene of the crime and the Home Office will be further exposed for the useless and politicised serious dysfunctionality it is.

The UK Border Agency now has to suspend not staff but its OWN BOSSES! And it STILL dumps hundreds of thousands of cases in a skip; and STILL has a 'no checks' policy.

2011-11-04T23:21:00.001Z

The (sub-)Ministry of You-Couldn't-Make-it-Up strikes yet again. Yes, the UK Border Agency – the bit of the Home Office that so totally embarrassed the rest of it (and that is some feat) that they had to tow it out into the English Channel, sink, and re-name it (again) … it's STILL, even now, taking the files of hundreds of thousands of immigration cases they've lost all track of and dumping them in a skip.

I love the name of the skip: the 'controlled archive'.

[Hilarious euphemism has long been the main work officials perform there. The 'no checks' application dumping regime was – and so far as I know still is – called the Backlog Reduction Accelerated Clearance Exercise, and therefore enjoys the seemingly robust acronym of BRACE.]

We now await a journalist to find the skips in which the un-shredded documents have been relocated in such carefully controlled fashion.

AND .…. oh yes, get this: this same numptiedom, that used to be called the Immigration & Nationality Directorate (because from way back it had form embarrassing the Gnome Office) … it's STILL suspending people.

But wait, everything stays the same and everything changes: they're now suspending the UK Border Agency BOSSES … for ordering staff to tear up immigration law and simply not do any checks!

Wow!

Now, if you recall, in my day they suspended (not to mention fired) the junior STAFF for pointing out that the bosses were tearing up immigration law and forcing staff to not do any checks.

Hang on though: this is not for telling staff to forget hundreds of thousands of 'lost' cases: this is for telling staff not to check people at airports, so as to cut down queues. An additional and quite separate crazy business. So they HAVEN'T suspended anybody for the ever-ongoing mass case-dumping nonsense; despite this having been going on for about a decade now.

So nothing changes after all.

The Home Office's immigration sub-department remains the complete and utter joke it has always been. Unless you've worked there you can have no idea just how – and to use again the words of former Home Secretary John Reid – dysfunctional and not-fit-for-purpose an organisation could actually get to be. I still even now have difficulty in believing it really could be that bad. But it truly is. Nothing this bad exists in theory, but exist in practice it very much does.

'Family justice'?! Men remain not second-class but not citizens at all.

2011-11-03T08:15:00.001Z

The joke of calling the most extreme prejudice towards and discrimination against men "family justice" is underlined by the appalling and unbelievable decision by 'former civil servant' David Norgrove (who?), the chairman of the official review on family justice which is published today, to continue to deny divorced men the most basic right in any society, to a relationship with their own biological children.

This is so fundamental that it thereby discharges men from the duty of upholding any obligations placed upon them by the state.

Why, for example, pay tax to authorities that openly and blatantly attack you and systematically deny your most basic rights?

Why accept conscription in time of war when what men are called to defend is utterly indefensible?

This continued completely unacceptable state of affairs provides the foundation for campaigns against the government: campaigns (and this cannot be said lightly) that could justifiably feature violence.

It really is that bad; that simple.

'Political-Correctness' talk, Sheffield Skeptics-in-the-Pub, Jan 16.

2011-09-25T12:44:00.001+01:00

PC bigots have a handy way of playing into your hands, don't they?

A few (who don't identify themselves or their 'arguments', of course) have lobbied Dale Williams of Sheffield Skeptics-in-the-Pub to be highly un-sceptical and to pull my talk on 'Political Correctness' scheduled for January 16, thereby showing in as clear a way as possible the great need for discussion of this topic, and the absence of free-speech at a forum specifically set up to facilitate the challenge to hegemonic positions with reasoned argument (and, in my case, peer-reviewed science data and multiple converging lines of evidence across disciplines).

As is often pointed out, the only free-speech worthy of the name is that which may 'offend' a common or majority stance. Everyone is in favour of speech that doesn't 'offend', so it's only in respect of that which 'offends' where free-speech is at issue.

If Dale doesn't come to see his ironic error, then the talk will go ahead elsewhere, with the helpful publicity this amusing debacle provides.

Those interested can contact me at stevemoxon3@talktalk.net.

Here is the blurb for my talk from the Sheffield Skeptics-in-the-Pub website .....

'Political correctness' – PC – can accurately be considered the new fascism (as will be fully explained).

Contrary to its tenets, it's the ordinary person, the Average Joe, we are prejudiced towards, and who indeed is disadvantaged and 'oppressed'; not women, ethnic minorities and gays.
* Women have always been actually privileged, and if in some way some women lost out as social conditions changed, then this was amended with a speed hampered only by inertia itself caused by the very strength of the arrangements already in place to provide female advantage but now anachronistic.
* Many ethnic-minority groups fare better in education and in work than the average citizen, often in the context of the sort of community cohesion now lost to the host culture.
* 'Gays' likewise benefit from community cohesion, are notably over-represented in nice-jobs-if-you-can-get-them, and don't have the costs of compromising with the opposite sex.
The hard-done-by group in any and every society is the mass of (necessarily) lower-status males.

The deepest of reasons account for this: the root function of the male across biology (as will be explained). But synergistically with this, in our own culture there has been a pathological all-pervasive political development.

There is a powerful reason why we never hear talk about 'the workers' any more: it's that they never 'rose up' as Marxist theory prescribed and predicted; leaving egg on the faces of those with a political-left mindset. Reducing this 'cognitive-dissonance' could be achieved in the classic way of not blaming either one's own gullibility or the belief itself, and instead to blame others.

Given that the typical worker was male and white, so it became imperative to erase this sub-group from consideration as being in need of 'liberation', and to substitute sub-groups that are non-male and non-white. Hence women, ethnic minorities and gays were latched on to as the superficially plausible new 'oppressed'; not merely displacing 'the workers' but inverting their role in ideology to be the new 'oppressor' class, whilst transforming the state in political imagination from the tool of the 'boss' class to the supposed agent of social change. On the standard principle that a turncoat is reviled even more than an enemy, enmity transferred from the 'boss' class to the mass of ordinary people (less the abstracted aforesaid sub-groups).

The process began long ago, in the late 1920s, when it was first realised that the Soviet experiment was failing economically, and that therefore a cultural rather than an economic theory of Marxism was required. Academics in central Europe (who took themselves and their ideas to the USA and its Ivy League universities) rationalised the failure of theory regarding the 'proletariat' by utilising then current (but now entirely discredited) pseudo-scientific ideas of Freud concerning repression and the family. 'Capitalism' was deemed to 'repress' the 'worker' through the agency of the family, which itself was falsely regarded as a 'capitalist' creation.

These idiotic notions filtered down through the vastly expanding university systems across the West in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, through highly influential writers such as Herbert Marcuse, ready to fully 'hit the pavement' at the time that the political-Left collapsed first as an electoral force (circa 1980 with the end of the post-war settlement and the rise of Thatcher and Reagan), and then as a forcible imposition (in 1989 with the spectacular implosion of the Soviet empire). In the 1990s, if not before, PC became the new religion of the government-media-education elite, and then, as ever, the rest of the establishment – not least the police and the judiciary – fell into line behind the new order.

It was never a question of 'political correctness gone mad': PC never made (any rational) sense in the first place. In pretending to be about being nice to people but actually despising us, it's the deepest and widest, most serious political fraud in history; that may be – is clearly meant to be -- the death of our culture. PC is the quintessential example of expressing pique in the time-honoured manner of 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.

'Underclass' my foot: the 'riots' essentially were an attack by a migrant-enclave community on the host culture

2011-08-13T23:40:00.001+01:00

Those who claim that the 'riots' were a phenomenon of 'the underclass' are wilfully ignoring the elephant(s) in the room.

I'm here replying to BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton's own blog -- myself and Mark having been in private email discussion.

The 'riots' were not started by 'the underclass': they appear to have been started by the community of Afro-Caribbean gangsters and their associates, as a ploy to impose costs on the police for their efforts to try to disrupt gangsterism through Operation Trident and associated activity; and in consequence to get the police to back off.

This was essentially an assault by one community on another: the entrenched Afro-Caribbean migrant enclave (the most visible and extreme elements of it, or wider sections of it led by extreme elements) on the host community -- if the latter could be considered sufficiently cohesive to be termed a community; which, of course, it no longer really is.

Mark chooses to restrict consideration to those who at most are merely the hangers-on to ethnic-gangster-based culture: those who at most have in part assimilated to 'black' culture even whether or not they possess the particular in-group marker of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity themselves. To these people the 'riots' were either just a fashion statement to which they were conforming, or -- showing even less agency -- simply normative behaviour they opportunistically piggy-backed to a minimal extent.

Anyone who has studied any social-psychology at all will recognise this sort of behaviour. Humans will conform to the most outrageous behaviour if they perceive it to be normative. Hence the famous Milgram experiments, where perfectly normal and average individuals administered what they were led to believe were painful electric shocks to others, even up to lethal levels, simply because they were instructed to do so.

As Peter Hitchens remarked (BBC Radio 4 Any Questions last night): most of those initially picked up by the police were the numpties that in their keenness to display that they were street-cred sheep were too stupid not to still be there when the police finally bothered to do something. They are hardly the criminals who instigated the 'riots', but just those who came along to gate-crash the party.

So it was that amongst the first to be charged were several who could in no way be characterisable as 'underclass', who may now be mightily embarrassed that they were so stupid, or may salve their cognitive-dissonance by seeking to justify their actions as being akin to seeing a common commodity item lying on the floor and just picking it up to take home -- which in the context of what had indeed become normative behaviour, indeed is just about what their behaviour amounted to. Both of these responses are acutely evident in comments to reporters by many of those who took part and now look back on their behaviour in the cold light of day.

This is not to excuse follow-up opportunistic looting of stores already ransacked, but to put the 'riots' in its various aspects into a proper perspective; which to a committed relativist, as any BBC journalist PC-fascist has to be, would be easy to appreciate if PC-fascism had any internal logic!

I don't downplay the aping of 'black' culture: it's a measure of just how culturally dispossessed we have become under PC-fascist onslaught and the massive growth of migrant enclaves and the entrenchment of migrant-enclave sociality this has facilitated. The famously rude historian David Starkey sussed this well enough in his interesting and forceful comments on BBC2 Newsnight last night. Yet in showing an understanding of the 'black'-aping 'white' 'underclass', he too fails to understand that the root of the 'riots' is inter-communal conflict. He was explicit that he thought the violence was not inter-communal, and even went so far as to say that Enoch Powell had got it wrong in this respect: that Powell was right that immigration would destroy us, but by a different process. Part of Starkey's error is that he seems not to understand the wider context of the de facto 'war' being waged by our elite against the rest of us that is PC-fascism. There surely will be inter-communal strife well enough when everyone wakes up to that.

It speaks volumes about the media and the BBC in particular that none of this fairly obvious analysis can be seen through the standard government-media-education uber-class PC-fascist blinkers that pretty well all BBC employees possess as a mindset in order to have obtained and to retain their jobs.

As ever, ordinary people are to be condemned and, if possible, criminalised; whereas those who are PC-identified as members of spurious 'disadvantaged' groups are to be supported and pitted against ordinary people as agents of the 'progressive project', as it were.

Even apart from the blinkers of a PC-fascist ethos, I'm constantly amazed at the sheer ignorance of the dynamics of human sociality displayed by political commentators; but then that is only too true of sociologists. Until everyone -- and especially journalists and sociologists -- are required to properly study biology, thereby to appreciate sociality as explained 'from the bottom up', then hopelessly false analysis will continue to prevail.

That the 'riots' were caused by ethnic-enclaving is shown by the pattern of spread

2011-08-12T14:39:00.001+01:00

The fully expected 'sweeping under the carpet' progresses, as with the analysis today on BBC News by the BBC's Home Affairs editor, Mark Easton, who said that the 'riots' were "not about 'race' "

Indeed they are not about 'race' in the sense of being some sort of protest by a particular ethnicity, but the 'riots' were predominantly caused by the in-group psychology that produces the cultural enclaves that even longstanding migrants of some ethnicities are usually to be found.

That the several-days-long 'uprising'indeed was centrally caused by 'race' -- or, rather, 'culture' attached to 'race' -- could not be more evident in the pattern of how it started and spread across the country. It was in the order of cities according to size of Afro-Caribbean sub-population: from Tottenham within London, to first Birmingham, then Bristol and Liverpool, plus Nottingham, and then to Manchester; hardy at all to Leicester (which has only a small A-C sub-population), NOT AT ALL to the massive city of Sheffield (which has few A-Cs), and to Yorkshire to the only place where there is any concentration of A-Cs: the small area of Leeds called Chapeltown.

Yes, there were white, mainly underclass 'hangers on', but this is testament to just how much ethnic-African and specifically Afro-Caribbean gang culture has prospered, and how much the culture of those who are towards the foot of the indigenous ('host') population has not.

The problem is the entrenchment of profound 'in-grouping' in even long-established migrant enclaves: the very opposite of integration.

Wider issues of social breakdown are themselves in substantial part contingent on this main issue of migrant enclave in-grouping; and in any case, are not least both caused by and are a manifestation of the contempt by the government-media-education uber-class for the mass of ordinary people in the backlash of 'PC-fascism' -- which is, of course, why mass immigration had been deliberately foisted on us in the first place.

Nobody at the BBC can come clean about this, because they have to tow the line of the standard 'PC-fascist' ethos (fully internalised as it is at the BBC as in all other parts of the establishment) in order to hang on to their jobs. So this is no dig at Mark, who's a nice chap. Rather, it's in some sympathy with him.

Tottenham: ethnic-enclaving is growing, not fading; and anyone can see where that is going

2011-08-07T08:32:00.001+01:00

The complete failure of integration even of third-generation migrants following uncontrolled immigration has been all too well illustrated by the events in Tottenham overnight, which replicate the Broadwater Farm and nationwide inner-city uprisings against the host culture of a generation ago.

Media – the BBC especially – predictably fail to mention the ethnicity of the man that an armed police response team shot dead in Tottenham: Mark Duggan is, of course, black. Everybody well knows that ethnic-minority enclave versus host-community conflict is what this is all about. Yet again we go through the ridiculous brushing-under-the-carpet at which the media and the BBC in particular are so adept.

Hilariously, the media is afraid that mere mention of reality will boomerang their bogus charges of 'racism' back in their own faces. The conflict is, of course, not about 'race' but about culture. Ethnicity is merely a marker. Everyone knows individuals of various ethnic minorities who are if anything more culturally English/British/European – however you wish to term it – than they are themselves. Not only are such people no problem to us: they readily become members of our 'in-groups' (to use a term from psychology and sociology). So much for supposed ineradicable 'racism'.

It is plain for all to see that many migrant enclaves persist with not just no sign of breaking down under assimilation to the host community, but actually strengthen. Anyone would intuit that this would occur. It's basic human behaviour.

Recent research has shown that in-group/out-group psychology is much more to do with in-group 'love' than it is about out-group 'hate'. That is, the psycho-social force that establishes and maintains a group such as a migrant enclave is not hostility from without, but cohesion from within. The indigenous 'white' community is not responsible for ethnic ghettoisation; it is ethnic grouping by minorities that itself produces ghettoisation.

Of course, the more that our completely uncontrolled immigration is allowed to continue, the larger and more specific the plethora of migrant enclaves we host becomes. We know from the example of many Muslim migrant enclaves that far from the predicted assimilation, a third-generation population actually is less integrated into the mainstream than are more recent newer arrivals, and than were these very communities in their first generation.

It is not merely that integration has completely failed: the very reverse has occurred. Migrant-enclaving has become ever further entrenched. As enclaves have grown in size through so-called chain-migration, natural specialisation by those within the enclave means an ever declining need for the enclave to integrate with the host community at its margins.

Given the huge numbers of people involved, no pessimism of any kind is required to see that what we have here is a social disaster of monumental proportions; and that's even before you take into consideration the great driving force for inter-cultural conflict that is the intrinsically conflictual religion (as scholarship reveals) of Islam. The enclaving of ethnic Africans in parts of London in comparison to much Muslim enclaving looks more like a multi-cultural success story, but as overnight events reveal, this is to say the least superficial.

To reiterate: the scenario is one of inter-cultural conflict, with ethnicity being merely a marker in all this.

This has been self-inflicted, as it were; that is, inflicted on the rest of us by a government-media-education uber-class that hates the mass of ordinary people through the immense backlash of 'political-correctness' by those of a political-Left mindset who cannot reconcile in their minds their ethos with the refusal by 'the workers' ever to buy revolutionary socialism and 'the progressive project'. It is the greatest political fraud in history: the most spectacular example of taking the ball home and refusing to play. For taking down with them the society that, as any society, would not change into something entirely foreign to human-nature; the malicious fools responsible will be cursed forever.

Anders Breivik and his manifesto: a great deal of nonsense has been written

2011-08-01T12:06:00.001+01:00

A great deal of nonsense has been written about Anders Breivik, the man who ruthlessly attacked the ruling Norwegian Labour Party.

That pretty well everyone – myself not excluded – recoiled at his actions, does not belie the accuracy of Breivik's research and analysis in his 'manifesto', which is in line with most scholarship in respect of both PC and Islam.

It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of 'cultural Marxism'. So we are, in effect, 'at war' within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.

And Islam seems not to be a benign religion that is toxic only to the extent that some have adopted a veneer of Western revolutionary thinking after Marx to produce a fundamentalism. Breivik makes an exhaustively detailed convincing case that the problem is inherent in the core of the religion itself and how it is interpreted generally; contrary to what I have previously understood (until recent reading of scholars had already set me along these lines).

It is not through any Christian religiosity that Breivik arrives at his position: he is not in any way a practising Christian, let alone a Christian fundamentalist as has been claimed -- or, rather, guessed. But it is when he gets on to Christianity in his 'manifesto' that Breivik's thesis seems to me perhaps to be weak.

A Christian based governance is inherently "serving" and therefore not as corruptible as other forms, Breivik argues. But what about the evidence from history – and, yes, this is a long time ago, granted – of the corrupt payments for 'indulgences'? He says that whereas "Liberal modernity" is down to "a God of Mammon" and Islam is "the will of God in Sharia"; with Christianity "the government is first accountable to the revealed will of God". Well, isn't this just any projection those in power care to think up? Looking at our own Christian leaders, currently this seems to be PC.

Christianity has to rise again, Breivik hopes: presumably he thinks (correctly) that religion in some form is inevitable, so that rather than the humanism that simply substituted mankind for God to beget Marxism, we'd be better off with the status quo ante. This is similar to the positions of Franco and Hirohito, who sought not the revolutionary overthrow of elites in the interests of the masses -- as would Marxists and their very close brothers the fascists – but merely to bolster fading national religions (Catholicism and Shintoism) and monarchies. Yet is it not something more than mere optimism to expect that some return to rationality will replace PC-fascism after it implodes?

As for his take on the gender [sic] aspect of PC, it may be that Breivik was influenced by his immediate family background. He had a relationship with his family members, excepting his father, who left the family when Anders was aged just one. He always maintained full contact with his mother, notwithstanding lamenting what he regarded as her promiscuity. This Breivik blames on the moral relaxing that attended PC, though it seems more likely that this was an association rather than that PC was the major causal factor (PC in any case not being a significant presence at this time). Surely it was instead down to the advent in the 1960s of near-infallible contraception, which relieved men of the obligation to enter 'shotgun marriage'. [This is the basis of the 'great disruption', as Francis Fukuyama terms the social change Breivik bemoans.]

It may be that his early experiences and how he reviewed them in later life are a critical part of Breivik's motivation to move from what is a worthy analysis to the sort of violence few would contemplate (at least seriously), let alone carry out. Maybe we will get to know in time, after the wild speculations have evaporated and a more dispassionate focus comes to bear.

A loner Breivik appears not to be: he had friends. There is no evidence that Breivik is insane or even psychopathic: his calmness during the attack does not mean that he would be indifferent to people in other situations. He's intelligent, well-educated, and very capable of clear thought – though whether or not he 'over-thought' regarding strategy is another question. Though his actions may turn out to be counter-productive, at least for now he's succeeded more than anyone else in prompting a very widespread focus on the major problem that is PC. That can hardly be denied.

Why Ken Clarke essentially is right regarding 'serious' rape

2011-05-18T12:54:00.001+01:00

Ham-fisted though Ken Clarke may be, he is essentially right about rape, and David Cameron merely trots out deeply uniformed disgraceful PC-fascism

The clear reason why over recent years the proportion of convictions has declined is the change in the nature of the cases coming forwards. 'Stranger rape' remains rare, but so-called 'acquaintance' rape has mushroomed. These cases are inherently not only usually one person's word against another's, that by definition can't even reach the civil standard of proof, let alone a criminal conviction; but often revolve around applying a definition of rape that in many cases is borderline, if not marginal to the point of splitting hairs; and often amounts to a retraction of consent after the sexual act took place.

'Stranger rape' cases are by contrast always clear-cut. By comparison rare, perpetrators usually are serial offenders, who are -- bar police clumsiness -- fairly easily caught. Clearly, albeit that there are cases of 'aquaintance rape' of a character more akin to 'stranger rape', in that these are very much the minority then there should be a profound distinction in sentencing accordingly btween 'stranger' and 'acquaintance' rape.

Self-evidently hopeless 'acquaintance' rape cases nevertheless are still passed by the CPS to be taken to court, not least because in effect the burden of proof has been shifted on to the defence. Changes in the law in 2003 now require an accused man to show that he took "reasonable steps" to establish consent. The court even supplies a "non-exhaustible list" of what he should have done! The law is supposed to be that any activity is presumed not to be illegal unless it is so proscribed, but in the case of sex, all sex by men is on sufferance of being declared illegal in what amounts to a 'show trial'.

To make matters far worse, research across the world reveals that specialist rape investigators conclude that most rape allegations made to police are fabricated. This is why, despite decades of pressure from the Home Office, a quarter of complaints are still 'no crimed'. No crime is deemed to have taken place. On top of this, many of the large number of cases put under 'no further action' police strongly suspect likewise are fabrications. Sir Ian Blair himself authored the study in England that showed that police estimated 50-70% of complaints to be bogus. Even on the Home Office's own figures in two specialist rape studies, conservatively 35% of formal rape allegations are bogus.

Professor Keith Soothill has researched the reasons why women fabricate rape, which can be and often are extremely trivial. So it was that the two large studies on supposed 'drug rape' found that the whole phenomenon was a hoax. The Forensic Science Service looked at over a thousand hospitalised cases and found that a third had self-administered illegal drugs, a third has self-administered alcohol, and a third were not intoxicated with anything at all. The embarrassments that in the case of each of these thousand individual women these claims of 'drug rape' were to cover, were varied but mostly astonishingly inconsequential.

Given all this, it should be clear that there needs to be a radical review of sentencing for rape, the role of the CPS, and the question of anonymity for both defendents and accusers.

Talk of wanting to increase the rate of conviction is an appalling travesty of justice, and is the Harriet Harman line of trying to convict nine innocent men to try to catch the one man who actually is guilty.

''Not fit for purpose' -- as ever. The Borders Agency hasn't a clue even when given 100,000 of them

2011-05-13T12:15:00.000+01:00

Four reports in quick order by independent inspectorates has revealed that The Borders & Immigration Agency is no more 'fit for purpose' and no less dysfuctional than the former Immigration & Nationality Directorate supposedly it replaced.

Of course, this is to be fully expected because there was no replacement but merely a rebranding. That is all that the 'points system' is; plus renaming the whole shebang as an 'agency' so as to symbolically distance the sub-department within the Home Office from Home Office top management. Journalists should be ashamed of themselves for not delving in even the most cursory manner to see that this is the case.

The latest castigating report is by John Vine, the independent inspector for the BIA, who states that there is no routine way that the BIA acts upon the 100,000 tip-offs annually they receive about illegal migrants. They simply don't record outcomes -- for the obvious reason that there aren't any, or very few; at least not positive ones.

"It's not wthin the DNA of the officers", Vine quipped.

This is fully in line with the Home Office contention that immigration is an impossible problem to solve, and that in any case an in effect completely open border is consonant with the 'political-correctness'-fascist stance through Government and the government-media-education elite (the major backlash against ordinary UK citizens).

The BIA has no idea how many illegal migrants are in the UK, even to the nearest million ... not even how many of those it has granted entry are bona fide. It does not know who or where they are, nor what they are doing.

Given that there will be no reintroduction of a system to take the details of all those entering and leaving the UK until the inexplicably delayed 'e-borders' scheduled for 2014, then in the meantime anyone can come here as a mere tourist and disappear -- never mind as a bogus student, marriage partner, etc.

There is no immigration system in the UK worth the name.

What is even worse is that there is no routine mechanism to stop illegal (and deemed legal but actually fraudulent) migrants from accessing benefits, National Insurance Numbers and the NHS.

The Home Office and Government more widely (notably the DWP) evidently continues to regard the whole shambles as just too daunting to tackle and to do little more than take gesture measures and simply to 'news manage'.

It was ever thus.

There is little sign that the Coalition Government will do much to change any of this. After all, David Cameron seems hardly that much less of a PC-fascist than most Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians -- it pains me to say as a former long-time LD activist -- notwithstanding his recent immigration speech, which appears very much to be just talk ahead of last week's elections.

What sort of signal is it to cut 5,000 BIA staff?

Yes, they're useless, but only because they are made useless by a system the hopelessness of which should be Cameron's very top priority to radically change.

'Not fit for purpose' -- as ever. The Borders Agency hasn't a clue even when given 100,000 of them

2011-05-13T08:05:00.000+01:00

"It's not wthin the DNA of the officers", Vine quipped.

There is no immigration system in the UK worth the name.

What is even worse is that there is no routine mechanism to stop illegal (and deemed legal but actually fraudulent) migrants from accessing benefits, National Insurance Numbers and the NHS.

It was ever thus.

What sort of signal is it to cut 5,000 BIA staff?

Yes, they're useless, but only because they are made useless by a system the hopelessness of which should be Cameron's very top priority to radically change.

Vince Cable's got a cheek

2011-04-14T21:35:00.000+01:00

So Vince Cable reckons Cameron's speech on immgration today will bolster extremists.

Come again?

The real extremism re immigration is the 'political-correctness' fascism that is the political attitude that is the basis of the policies of mass immigration and the persistent turning of a blind eye to its obvious effects.

It is the contempt and hatred for the mass of ordinary people who have not bought the 'progressive project' that has led to the elevation as supposed disadvantaged sub-groups of, most notably, ethnic minorities / migrants (along with women, gays, trans-sexuals, etc).

This great political fraud and maliciousness dwarfs anything the EDL or BNP stand for.

The levels of immigration over the past few decades exceeds -- we now know through recent genetic research -- the influx of Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

It is laughable to try to make out that calling this mass immigration is any sort of exaggeration. And this is before you take into account the unknown number of illegals, that Professor Salt, using an invalid international comparison, reckons is (with dependents and non-workers) about a million. Two or three million, more like.

And it is untrue, as Cameron claims, that there is no impact on employment. A Home Office study showed that for every 1% increase in the number of migrants, there is a 0.2% increase in non-migrant unemployment. Furthermore, George Borjas showed there is also a 0.3 to 0.4% fall in wages.

The European Court ruling is to discriminate against MEN re pensions.

2011-03-01T09:16:00.000Z

The European Court of Justice [sic] has ruled that it is sex-discriminatory for any form of insurance or pension to take account of gender [sic], and this is covered in the news, notably by the BBC, as discriminatory against women re car insurance. But the really huge effect will be to the disadvantage of men in the level of pension payments they receive.

There contines to be the enormous sex-discrimination against men in the male pension age being later than that for women, when it should be the other way round given that men live on average five years less than do women. A slight compensation for this has been that insurers give larger annuities to men in recognition.

It is this that is to be removed and is, obviously, the purpose of the the ECJ's actions.

Consequently, even when pension ages are belatedly equalised, the sex-differential in longevity will mean that men are heavily discriminated against in what purports to be sex-equality.

Sex-equality is always designed to ignore sex-difference and sex-dichotomy when to do so preferences women; it is never when the advantage to the sexes is reversed.

This reveals starkly that supposed equality is anything but.

Immigration 'cap' tougher than expected, but fraud is as big a problem as numbers

2010-11-24T18:53:00.000Z

Well, the new Home Secretary's announcement re the immigration 'cap' is tougher than had been flagged up, with the near elimination of the 'Tier-1' category of those coming here seeking work on spec. Although applicants in this category had to meet qualification and income critera, many ended up in menial jobs, showing that the whole category was misconceived. Now only those who are of 'exceptional talent' or are entrepreneurs/ investors will qualify. This new severe restriction is reflected in the 'cap' for this categpry of a mere one thousand.

The remaining migration route for those seeking to work in the UK, the 'Tier-2' old work permits category, is to be much more generously 'capped', and there is also a controversial exemption for firms to import individuals they already have working in overseas locations. This will not please IT professionals in particular who have long complained that they are unfairly undercut and made unemployable by firms importing Indian workers through inappropriately taking advantage of HMRC tax and allowance breaks.

Taking all together, the reduction in numbers does not represent the claimed cut of a quarter: it is instead in line with the bottom of the range of reduction recommended last week by the Immigration Advisory Committee (13-25%). Even so, the signs are that the Coalition Government is set to make huge cuts in numbers coming in under the studentship and family reunion streams, and could actually manage to achieve the stated target of reducing net migration to the tens from the hundreds of thousands.

A big problem, though, is the enormous problem of fraud. Cutting numbers certainly keeps out a corresponding proportion of bogus applicants, but preventing the mass admission of such individuals is even more important than controlling overall numbers. It is not just ostensible English language students coming in either on their own inititive or through the large number of bogus colleges, but many with visas in respect of university courses are also bogus. As David Cameron revealed in PMQs today, he and Teresa May were told by every front-line immigration officer they met at Heathrow Airport earlier this week, that many arrivals supposedly here to study degree courses could not speak English, but owing to their possession of a visa had to be let in. [How officers are denied the powers to prevent entry when the visa has so obviously been obtained fraudulently is another question that needs answering.]

Tackling fraud requires the will to do it and much more resources. Both have been seriously lacking if not entirely absent at the Home Office and its Borders & Immigration Agency, and it is this more than anything that has to change. The climate of cuts notwithstanding, few will argue with a decision to significanlty shift spending to immigration control.

Student visa fiasco: Damian Green's forthcoming speech

2010-09-06T12:46:00.001+01:00

There is now even greater student visa fraud than before, judging by the huge inexplicable jump from 185,000 grants in 2004 to 362,00 in 2008. The problem was enormous before, so this is saying something. No wonder then that the immigration minister, Damian Green, is set to deliver a speech on this specific issue tonight.

My experience as a caseworker was that many if not most student visa applications were likely fraudulent; especially those re 15-hour per week English courses (the most miminal education course conferring eligibility to migrate). In any case, there were no systems in place to in any way properly check applications, and an ex-colleague still working within Managed Migration tells me its worse now even than when I was there. Indeed the ethos is that "we are in the business of granting". Any application refered on to a senior caseworker that conceivably could be appealed, the senior caseworker insists is granted. This means that virtually all applications are granted entirely irrespective of merit.

There have been repeated announcements of new checks on supposed English language colleges, even though these supposedly have been in place from before even the time I was working there. This is a clear admission that there are large humbers of 'colleges' that act merely as fronts for illegal migration. The announced checks are always the same as before -- keeping a list of colleges found to be bogus. But there are very few staff allocated to this work, and precious few visits. This was in place in 2003-2004, but it consisted of two workers in some cupboard, who were not contactable from one week to the next (probably, like most indviduals at any one time within the Home Office, on some sort of leave or job-share).

There has been research that many even of the visas granted re university courses are also fraudulent -- many more such visas were issued than the total of foreign student places granted at UK universities.

The big problem is that it is not until 2014 that counting both in and out plus taking details of migrants is to be introduced. Also there are insufficient resources both for checking visa applications and enforcement through frontline immigration officers.

And the big problem behind that is the completely hopeless culture at the Home Office -- its longstanding attitude that immigration is an insoluble problem simply to be news-managed; and in any case is furthering the 'equal opportunities and diversity' drive [that is, a profound punishment backlash against the mass or ordinary citizens (formerly 'the workers') to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance in the political-Left mindset -- for some time now the dominant one in the establishment -- caused by the sustained complete failure of the revolutionary or progressive project].

Why Nick Clegg's thrown in the Immigration towel

2010-05-01T07:21:00.001+01:00

Nick Clegg's thrown in the towel over immigration, and I take quite a bit of the blame.

Throwing in the towel is the very last thing on the Lib Dem leader's mind given his poll ratings, so why such a line on immigration: an amnesty for illegals?

Well, it does play well as contrast with the thorough dishonesty of Gordon Brown's complete spin over substance. Brown continues to actively allow uncontrolled mass immigration without any reform other than a pretense. A former colleague of mine at the Borders & Immigration Agency told me last week that the shambles of administration actually had got worse even compared to when I worked there; just as I had predicted it would.

Clegg's policy on immigration owes not a little to a brainstorming session on the topic I had with him some time ago. He really took on board that the immigration system is irredeemable. I told him that the Home Office would never ever get its act together and that there was not the slightest will to do so, either by the Home Office top brass or ministers; that indeed there was every sign it would actually get worse.

I impressed on Nick that given the porosity of our borders (which are effectively those of the EU) and the colossal job of expelling in total literally millions, that there would have to be an 'internal gateway' to deal with the vast number of illegals already here and the millions that are set to come. The frontline of the BIA is never going to be given the staff or the funds to be more than a token force. The issue then shifts to stopping people obtaining benefits and work to which they are not entitled. This, after all, is the main complaint by the majority of British citizens not least legal migrants. Introducing a routine mechanism to check on immigration status at the DWP (re national Insurance numbers) and the Benefits Agency should not be insurmountable.

The Liberal Democrat leader took my analysis all too fully on board. So gloomy is he of anything effective being done that he has adopted a policy of "earned" citizenship an amnesty for illegals by another name. Illegals will "earn" this not just from having illegally lived here (for ten years), but through also having illegally worked. The justification for this measure is that the Home Office can't and won't expel them; not least because there are not records as to who they are or where they live. Well then how is any evidence they might provide to be checked? It would be yet another major avenue for immigration fraud. In any case, if they are working in the 'shadow economy' and saving money through not paying tax, or if they have a National Insurance number and are in regular employment; then why would they want to come forward? And irrespective of how many would come out of the woodwork, how can Nick answer the charge of 'moral jeopardy' with the obvious still stronger inward pull to migration an amnesty would provide?

This is the immigration election. If we didn't know it before, we certainly know it in the wake of Gillian Duffy. The last of the leaders' debates showed that immigration is the threat to Nick Clegg's poll support. Still, post-debate polls suggest it might not cost the Liberal Democrats second place overall.

Could the party even have been first in the polls if Nick Clegg had been in place as leader for the whole of the last Parliament? All right, he would not have had the 'new kid on the block' bounce, but neither would he be vulnerable now to a 'Johnny come lately' rebuff. I had personally several times urged Nick to put in for leader when Charles Kennedy stood down, but though he considered it, his instinct was that it would have been a strike too early.

It was obvious that Nick Clegg was the intelligent, youthful communicator, that being on the political-right of the party, was just the figure to appeal to Tory voters that the Lib Dems needed. Yes: the right of the party. His amnesty proposal stems less from the usual PC-fascist revenge against the ordinary person [f*** 'the workers'] than from the sort of libertarian instinct David Davies shares. But there you go: Davies lost out in the Tory Party leadership contest to David son-of-Blair Cameron.

Menzies Campbell's caretaker slot bit a big chunk out of the time Nick has had for the electorate to get to know who he was. Will they want to get to know him better now they know his policy on immigration?

Gordon's Great Gaff: Brown speaks with the true voice of PC-fascism

2010-04-28T14:08:00.001+01:00

The key moment of the election campaign has today arrived: Gordon's "bigotted woman" charge.

It was inevitable such a gaff would happen.

This is how the government-media-education uber-class regard all of the rest of us. It is especially how the Labour Party regards all of the rest of us.

The Gorgon's great gaff is emblematic of the great backlash by the political-Left against the mass of ordinary people for not behaving according to how the political-Left ethos predicts and prescribes we all should do.

Major aprty politicians (not just Labour) cannot cope with recognising that it is the complete failure of their own political-philosophy that is the problem, and not how ordinary people are. Politics is never going to change human nature.

People are waking up to this chasm between themselves and the elitist-separatism of the government-media-education elite, but as yet they can't quite put their finger on what is at the root of it. They know there will always be those who try to lord it over them. of course, But this is different, and they somehow know it. Everybody knows in their guts that the new elite actively despises them.

This is behind the extraordinary reaction to the MPs' expenses scandal.

We are none of us surprised to find that the Labour government deliberately massively increased immigration simply to dilute us and punish us -- as the former speech writer to Tony Blair, Andrew Neather, sensationally revealed.

Labour are the worst of the parties, but through their long evoloution of poistioning in the 'centre', Conservatives are not so far behind. Ditto (sad for me to to say, as a former Lib Dem activist) the Liberal Democrats.

In Britain today, there are the mass of ordinary pretty decent folk, and then there are our leaders and others in positions of authority, who are (or suck up to) 'political-correctness' fascists. [And I use that term according to its proper definition. If you are under the illusion that the BNP is the principal locus of fascism in Britain today, think again.]

The backlash by the political-Left, as is well documented and commented upon, is what has produced our era of what has been dubbed 'politcal-correctness'. That is the great new fascism: a far wider and deeper phenomenon than any previous manifestation.

Distinguished from Marxism as being not the attempt to control 'the means of production' but what surrounds it -- notably culture generally; fascism is nothing to do with nationalism or 'racism', though of course it can be so allied, as it was in Germany. Nazism was national-socialism that set out to oppress a minority; today we have a facsism that is more international, that attempts not to oppress an minority but actually the majority of the population. Quite a travesty.

There are interesting times ahead. The general election is barely the start.

British Government admits massive student visa fraud

2010-02-07T11:54:00.000Z

Proving the continued hopelessness of the UK immigration system, the Government today concedes that its student visa system allows massive fraud.

Why has it taken 13 years to finally admit this? I exposed it as a complete farce in early 2004, when it was all too obvious that most applications were fraudulent.

What have they done since then? Nothing. Just the 100% spin of introducing a 'points' system. This was not to change anything at all about the administration of visa applications. All they did was fuse together the Managed Migration and Work Permits UK sub-departments and carry on as before. Nobody who wasn't obliged to fulfil any work criteria before the advent of the 'points system' was so obliged afterwards.

So it is that to be entitled to a student visa, the '40 points' you need comprises a letter from an educational institution saying you're applying for a course (30 'points'), and some bank statements that purport to show you have some money (10 'points'). It is nothing to do with work. And of course, the letter can be from one of the hundreds of sham colleges or a simple forgery.

On this basis you can come in and be a student and work at the same time; and even if you're here only for a 15-hours-per-week English language course, you can bring in your dependants (or those you so purport to be), and they too can work! And not part-time but full time! The student him/herself is supposed to work only part-time (20 hours), but nobody ever checks.

The changes announced today include that a student will be allowed to work only 10 hours a week. Big deal! Given that nobody checks anyway, then there's no difference between being allowed to work 10 or 20 hours. Your education establishment will have to be one that appears on a new list. This will be the third generation of the Home Office's inept listing of supposedly bona fide colleges. There was such a list when I worked in Managed Migration. Then as now, it is mainly comprised of bogus colleges, not the bona fide ones which should be all that there are on the list. A new list will be no different to its two predecessors, because staff are never properly allocated to run checks, or checks that are in any way sufficiently robust. From this likely bogus college you will have to obtain not a letter stating you've applied, but that you've been accepted on to a course. Another big deal not. It makes no odds to the bogus college or the forger.

The changes that betray a real admission that the system is hopeless are that unless you're doing a degree-level course then dependants will no longer be allowed [well why was this ever allowed?!]; and that you have to speak English to just below GCSE level. But these measures address only a small portion of the massive abuse and will have little impact. As ever, measures are easy to get round. We know that there are considerably more visas granted to supposed degree-level students than the university admissions systems shows are actually here; so it's clearly quite easy to defraud the system re higher-level courses. As for English certificates: anyone can send in a bogus certificate and come here anyway. The English language test is designed to sweep away the sham beginner English courses that are (in a manner of speaking) everywhere, but this will just lead to more sham advanced and intermediate English courses.

The massive fraud will continue in this as in all avenues of migration to Britain, until there is the political will to address it. There is no sign of this. It has served the interests of a political class which seeks revenge on the mass of ordinary people for not behaving according to the prescription and prediction of the 'progessive project' (neo-Marxist rhetoric). That is what has produced the myriad manifestations of 'political correctness', not least the deliberate near complete compromising of our borders so that the UK citizenship can be diluted by an influx of a new mass of people imagined to be free of any resistance to the 'progressive project'. And the less they have in common culturally with the indigenous populace, so much the more likely [from the weird viewpoint of the 'political-correctness' fascism (for that is what it is) of the political-class] as not possessing 'counter-revolutionary' attitudes. Bizarre as this 'thinking' certainly is, it's an all too real major aspect of the times in which we live.

British Government admits massive student visa fraud

2010-02-07T11:34:00.000Z

Proving the continued hopelessness of the UK immigration system, the Government today concedes that its student visa system is hopeless.

Why has it taken 13 years to finally admit this?

I exposed it as a complete farce in early 2004, when it was all too obvious that most applications were fraudulent.

What have they done since then? Nothing. Just the 100% spin of introducing a 'points' system.

This was not to change anything at all about the administration of visa applications. All they did was fuse together the Managed Migration and Work Permits UK sub-departments and carry on as before. Nobody who wasn't obliged to fulfil any work criteria before the advent of the 'points system' was so obliged afterwards.

With migration, culture is the issue: Carey's right

2010-01-07T18:11:00.001Z

Culture is at the heart of the immigration debate, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, has rekindled what started with the revelations about Labour's imported millions last year.

Nobody could figure out why we have had the huge numbers of migrants from cultures that could hardly be more dissimilar to our own, to add to the dole queues and housing waiting lists; and store up problems for tomorrow in non-integrating migrant enclaves. Then earlier this year we discovered courtesy of Andrew Neather -- Blair's former adviser -- that it was to dilute the mass of ordinary folk, simply because we are not well disposed to whatever out-dated utopia they still envisage for us all.

The Government covered its tracks by scrapping counting in or out of the country non-EU nationals, and then by not enabling the Home Office or the DWP to cross-check immigration status and benefit claims and NI numbers; and has now fobbed us off with its 'points system' that does not alter how the vast majority of migrants are processed -- particularly those allowed to enter not through any work criteria, but by 'family reunion' and the like.

The huge numbers from undeveloped-world backwaters in sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent are not merely of little or no use to the economy, but a serious drain on it. It's known that some migrant sub-groups such as Bengalis and Somalis have adult male unemployment rates unchanged at above 50% even in boom times. They are not integrating. They form enclaves that at best integrate only at the margin; and which easily grow beyond the critical mass needed to be self-sustaining. They grow by 'chain-migration' facilitated by a near non-policy on immigration that in no aspect works in practice. The result is that the majority of new housing now is required for migrants, and the majority of births are to migrants.

Of course, some migrant groups -- not least some Muslim groups -- indeed do progressively integrate into the host community; but you need only a tiny minority of zealots and a minority of passive supporters to produce gathering strife. We know from surveys that we have more than enough individuals in both of those categories. The Home Office has produced internal reports sounding the alarm here. We well know the nature of the problem from Northern Ireland. Future internal conflict through Muslim fanaticism is not unlikely to make 'The Troubles' look like a little noisy-neighbours dispute. And ordinary people are already thinking about this: just listen to the conversation in pubs.

Lord Carey and Frank Field are right that we need not only to get migration rates back to the levels they were pre-Blair, but also that we must assess those who seek to come here, and those who once here seek permanent residence, to take into account cultural differences.

Just as there needs to be profiling of international air passengers, we will have to junk concerns about judging people.

We need to ask: 'Are you going to become one of us'?

And that question will have to be rhetorical in many cases.

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.

Mass migration benefits us just pence per head, but that's not including much of the cost

2007-01-08T10:05:00.000Z

The report by Migrationwatch that mass migration benefits each of us to the tune of just a Mars bar a month, is in line with all other studies and is very welcome, but what about some of the major costs that offset this benefit to make mass migration heavily negative in economic as well as social terms?

Where is the quantification of the overall costs of immigration in terms of the disenconomies of scale that mass immigration's stretching of infrastructure produces? Costs of mass migration are not simply a balance between tax receipts and tax credits and benefits.

I question the wisdom of separating discussion of any benefit from the full range of costs and in any way ceding the demonstrably false notion that there is an overall positive economic impact, however minuscule. People may forget quite how tiny is the benefit, but what's more, are likely to ignore the other major costs.

Reliance on the Government's own figures as to numbers of migrants and dependents is a major distortion, and realistic figures would make the economic impact significantly negative even without factoring in infrastructure stress. Given that nobody accepts Home Office figures as remotely accurate, then conservative guesstimates surely are in order. As Migrationwatch has pointed out in the past: only one in five legal migrants comes to Britain to work, and the Government is always over-estimating economic activity rates of migrants and massively under-estimating their numbers.

The tiny benefit that may be apparent through looking only on the positive side, looks even sillier when you consider that now is a time of sustained economic boom. We already have high levels of unemployment in certain ethnic minority groups, and when there is a serious downturn it is expected that these and recent migrant groups more generally will figure prominently in the shakeout of jobs. The costs of mass immigration will then be inescapable. In the past, the economic blight and social problems were restricted to certain places, notably the Lancashire and West Yorkshire mill towns. In the future it will be country-wide.

Not conning us, and not conning them

2007-01-08T10:04:00.000Z

Re EU accession day for Romania and Bulgaria, January 1st:

The Government continues to try to con us about immigration, and now tries to con would-be migrants themselves. To us they say the tide is welcome and controllable; to would-be migrants they plead pathetically, 'please don't come'. The reality is that the flood -- a word no longer taboo -- will be unstoppable.

Today is D-day: the debut of the deluge from Romania/Bulgaria. These two countries became part of the EU just as Big Ben signalled cold baths in Trafalgar Square. Along with them can come much of the population of the former USSR, whose citizens either bogusly claim to be ancestral East Europeans or simply cross the new expanded EU border that is leakier than a sieve. So what has the Home Office been doing in anticipation?

Well they havent predicted the number of arrivals as they did before the 'A8' EU accession Mayday 2004, and for the very good reason theyre certain to get it wildly wrong. Instead is a radical departure.

Usually the Home Office tries to con the British population that there is an immigration policy/system. This IS the immigration policy/system, there being otherwise just a never ending rubber stamping exercise. The innovation is to try the same thing on outsiders.

Tonys PR machine has been spending our money in Romania/Bulgaria on advertising that people need a work permit. No they dont. Migrationwatch reckons 300,000 will come -- albeit that many will go to Italy and Spain. Forged documents are cheap and easy to get on Bucharest streets, and in any case, Work Permits UK rarely check that people end up in the job they say they have come to fill. Most will work on the black, get jobs from employers happy to employ illegally for low wages, or exploit the loophole I exposed over two years ago and join the bogus 'self-employed'. The 'one-legged Romanian roof tiler' rides again.

Who will lose? (Would-be) British workers -- especially recent migrants -- already on the lowest wages. That's a main reason why a huge proportion of Bangladeshi men are on the dole. Many or most workers rightly will ask themselves: why work?

Can these new migrants get benefits instead? Yes. There is -- still -- no system in place at Benefits Agency offices/Job Centres to check anyones immigration status, so despite what the Government claims, anyone arriving in Britain can get benefits.

So as well as your pay going down and the sort of job you can hope to get becoming ever narrower; your taxes will continue to go up. Why work indeed.

Even as a skilled worker, you can escape to places like Australia only with difficulty. You can get into Romania though, and Poland: theyre low on workers at the moment, the Polish Government complains because theyre all here.

Immigration LAST year: only an 'estimate'?!

2006-11-04T11:38:00.000Z

Government deliberate misinformation about immigration continues with the estimates for not the future but the past. Its amazing that we have only guesses -- and very dodgy ones at that -- for what has already taken place. Yes, its closer to reality that guesstimates for the future, but it could hardly be more laughable than the twenty odd thousand predicted for 2004-6 of EU A8 (the newly acceded countries) nationals that turned out to be over 600,000, onthe Home Office's own admission. Well, actually its not far off laughable: the ONS reckon a net influx of a mere 64,000 Poles last year, yet the principal rep for Polish migrants in London says there are about a million arrivals since (and from shortly before) EU accession. That 600,000 plus figure is mostly Poles, and is generally thought to be an under-estimate.

In the absence of the embarkation controls that were lifted when Nu Labour came to office, all we have now is a bunch of market researchers at a handful of sea and air ports, who rely on the goodwill of those entering or leaving to volunteer information. This is the International Passenger Survey (IPS). I used to do survey work and I can tell you its a hopeless way of trying to get a representative sample. This is why the size of the A8 influx, according to these figures, bears not the slightest resemblance to other official totals.

The survey torpedoes the mantra from the Government and the IPPR that the hordes descending on us are all here to work. Only one-in-four even of those willing to talk to researchers are revealed to be here for this purpose. Even of those from Poland, not many more than half (60%) are here to work. Almost half the net inflow of non-EU migrants are from the poor nations of the new Commonwealth; principally the Indian subcontinent. Most of these come to settle. They swell migrant enclaves not because they have work permits but through the chain migration of family reunion (or family creation, in the case of marriage). There is 40% unemployment amongst Bangladeshi males, which is not surprising given that recent migrants are the most affected of all sub-groups by the forcing down of wages through the arrival of still more recent large numbers of the unskilled and semi-skilled.

Of course, very many of those who told our intrepid beclip-boarded ones that they were just on a trip, were telling whoppers. Or they later changed their minds, and switched to another immigration category so as to stay longer. Of those who get visas as students, there are four times as many claiming to be enrolled on a university course as the universities actually have registered. Then there are those taking part in the still more wholesale abuse of the visa system claiming to be on 15-hours-per-week English courses.

Even in this intentional mis-counting shenanigans -- that also fails to include clandestine entrants, obviously -- net inflow last year was the second largest for any year in our history (only the 2004 total was larger, and only by a little). The total coming in was close to 600,000, which minus about 400,000 Brits leaving these shores gives us a figure of roughly 200,000.

Now, 600,000 is the total of those who admit to arriving with the intention of a minimum one year stay. How many of these (plus how many of those not saying anything) have come to settle, the ONS isnt saying. Neither is it saying how it guesstimates the proportion of those claiming to be here for a matter of just months are telling porkies.

Its somewhat rich that the Governments own number-crunchers (supposedly semi-independent, but, you know, so are quangos) behave like kids who cant pass their SATS tests.

They will come here to work anyway. The door is fully open -- and ever further away. We need an internal gateway

2006-10-24T12:53:00.000+01:00

The Government is of course right to officially try to prevent a further and much bigger wave of nationals of Bulgaria and Romania gaining employment here after the accession to the EU of these countries. Critics of the policy are also right that these nationals are going to come here anyway and work in the black economy.

The critics understate the problem. These new EU citizens will come and work in the official economy, because the DWP has no system to check the immigration status of anyone who applies for a National Insurance number. Not that there is any need to bother to apply, because you can readily buy one on the street for twenty quid.

They will also come and claim benefits, because the DWP also has no system in place to check the immigration status of anyone who applies for any benefit. The Government has always claimed that tiny numbers only every claim benefits but they simply have not the remotest clue how many do so.

The upshot is that although the official line is welcome, in that it sends a signal to many not to bother coming here; the reality is that most will come anyway. The stable door has been closed after not a horse but most of the herd had long since bolted.

The problem of Bulgaria and Romania is only the start. Many people in countries of the former Soviet Union bordering Romania and Bulgaria have already secured Bulgarian/Romanian passports. The accession of these two countries provides an open door for anyone from the Russian federation to gain entry, and with their ultra low standard of living, then gain entry they certainly will; in huge numbers. Many of these have been obliged to become criminals to survive, and many if not the majority survive only by working unofficially at least to a degree, and so have long lost interest in any official work. Black economy work in Britain is an attractive proposition for them.

The growth of the EU points up the central nightmare that not only have we lost control of our own borders, but our border is now the highly porous one of the EU perimeter, which is in practice no border at all. So we can expect the wages available to those already without much if any incentive to work to fall still further. The polarisation of our society will continue and at a faster rate. The attitude by many of the huge numbers who can expect only low pay, quite sensibly will be to not bother working for what is after all, little if any more than can be got in benefits; just to pay taxes to a government that at best couldn't care less about indegenous workers, and for the most part positively despises them.

As I have argued in posts below, we need an internal gateway to make life much harder for those who choose to come and live and work here unofficially. The craziness that is the EU makes this argument even stronger. Once we have such a system, then the case is also strengthened for a proper external gateway. Then the progressive collapse of the EU -- a much more realistic scenario than our withdrawal -- will make the need for comprehensive immigration control both at our national borders and at the point of access to government services overwhelming.

Booker for Blunkett?

2006-10-23T07:51:00.000+01:00

The fantasy fiction genre has a new author. I heard extracts from David Blunketts nauseatingly self-righteous cherry pickings from his boring diaries on Radio 4.

What did he have to say about the 2004 debacle where tens of thousands of East Europeans, including many criminals, were simply rubber stamped into the country? Apparently this wasnt a ruse to try to siphon off numbers from the politically sensitive total of those arriving post accession. A Home Office report (the Sutton enquiry) said so. Well, David, as almost every commentator remarked at the time, this report was the most complete whitewash; as I have myself proved (see my book, The Great Immigration Scandal).

And what about poor old Bev Hughes? Blind in every sense, the Brightside buffoon reckons she did nothing wrong. So she didnt repeatedly grossly mislead Parliament? Er, well she did, but apparently it wasnt her fault. What about the three letters she wrote and sent that she denied all knowledge of? This was the Home Offices fault because "they did nothing". So its fine then for a minister to go on BBC Newsnight and state a crucial position that is flatly contradicted by three letters in the ministers own hand, and thats not her fault but her Departments?

Politicians really do beggar belief. Certainly we are very well rid of this supposed straight talker, who consistently reveals himself to be anything but.

The Information Commissioner is about to press the Home Office yet again to reveal documents to/from Blunkett and Hughes re the repeated backlog reduction BRACE exercises: the rubber stamping operations that systematically broke the law in not applying immigration rules. The Home Office is still insisting that disclosing these is not in the public interest -- though of course it cant explain what possibly could trump revealing systematic illegality at the heart of government. It certainly wont be in the Home Office's interests, nor the interests of the reputation of either Hughes or Blunket regarding truth and competence.

Up to 100,000 Turkish Kurds smuggled in by one gang: so how many MILLIONS of illegals in total?

2006-10-05T19:41:00.000+01:00

Well I was explaining (see below) why it is that the total number of illegal immigrants must be in the millions and not the hundreds of thousands we are led to believe by the Government. Now we know that one gang has smuggled in up to 100,000 Turkish Kurds.

Now, Kurds represent a tiny proportion of the people in the non-western world, and Turkish Kurds are a fraction of the total of Kurds. The 100,000 is just a subset of the total number of Turkish Kurd illegals here, because many will have come simply by overstaying on a visa, or fraudulently gaining entry as a student, etc.

The mystery is why people bothered with gangs anyway given how easy it is to get into Britain!

It also shows how useless is the supposed carbon dioxide detection system at ports of entry to find people hidden in lorries. But we knew that. There are only one or two ports with any equipment, the equipment doesnt work for lack of parts, there are not the staff to use it, nor the staff to process anyone detected; etc. Only a tiny fraction of traffic is ever examined.

The upshot is that if there are so many illegals from this tiny corner of the world, then how many are there of other nationalities? We know there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese illegals. It may be that the total of Chinese illegals alone totals as much as the sum total for all nationalities that the Government pretends.

It is another pointer to the truth of my argument that the scale of illegal immigration is massive, and far larger than anyone dares admit.

What the 600,000 figure hides

2006-08-26T09:11:00.000+01:00

Weve known for what seems like aeons that there are, at the very least, well over half a million new migrants from the East European nations newly acceded to the EU, and not the ten or twenty thousand the Government told us it anticipated. A couple of months back an internal Home Office report was leaked putting the figure at 660,000. This is a Home Office figure, you understand.

What does it not include? For a start, the several tens of thousands of those who colluded with the Government in the bogus self-employed scheme -- under the European Community Association Agreement (ECAA). I helped to rubber stamp completely unchecked into the country this mass influx ahead of the Mayday 2004 EU accession when I worked at Managed Migration. I said when I blew the whistle that this was a bare-faced Government con to siphon off as many migrants as possible ahead of the accession day to make the flood appear smaller. This is one reason why the projections prior to May 2004 for the first years influx were originally just 5,000 a year in total.

After the resulting scandal and the resignation of the immigration minister, the Government was bounced into setting up a registration scheme for all these new entrants, but even though it came after some of the horses had already bolted, this stable door was mysteriously porous. The Home Office was loathe to admit that registration was in fact merely voluntary. So anyone could come here and either work on the black or for any employer not bothering with the red tape. Then we learned that it didnt include the self-employed. The overall figure also does not include dependents -- a BBC Newsnight survey found that 30% of Polish arrivals either already had their family with them or were planning to bring them. On top of all this is the number who do not work at all.

If the Home Office is admitting to 660,000, then conservatively a million cant be wide of the mark. A principal Polish rep for new arrivals to the UK was interviewed by the BBC and said that he reckoned there must be a million; many of whom, he said, were destitute. This is just Poles, not the total for those from the other six new EU countries. How many of these are claiming benefits the Government certainly doesnt know, because the DWP has no means of checking the immigration status of applicants for any benefit. The policy is simply to hope that new migrants dont find out about this. If they do, the Government is not going to challenge a claim because they know that if this is appealed then EU law will overrule, and the assurances we were given will be seen to be as empty as they are.

The ex bosses chief, Digby Jones, has been all over the media proclaiming how good all this is for the economy; and of course its good -- for firms. It is not good for people, nor for the taxpayer; certainly in the long run. Talk to an economist with expertise in migration and he will tell you that any policy of mass immigration of low or unskilled workers will push down the wages of those already low paid, if not force them out of work. Worse than this, every semi-skilled or skilled worker who arrives is one less chance for someone to try to get themselves into the labour market by training. Its great for firms who now dont have to pay for this -- and it helps to hide how bad is our education system. Its not so great for the poorly planned public sector, which is training highly skilled staff such as nurses for positions it has already filled by recruiting abroad. As Frank Field pointed out, not one of the newly trained medical staff in his constituency had found a job as a direct result.

What happened to the idea of reducing inequality? What happened to the high wage economy? With a population that is both ageing and reproducing less, we have the opportunity to follow the model of several countries on the continent. Instead we are repeating on a grander scale the mistakes of the recent past. The textile industry we once had in the North of England was in dire need of investment in high tech to compete internationally given higher domestic wages. Instead, we imported cheap labour from the countries of competing textile industries to displace the indigenous workforce who couldnt live on the low wages, and textile manufacture struggled on. This lasted only until the threshold for necessary investment was so high that when this became the only option the mill owners simply cut their losses and shut the whole industry down. The taxpayer now pays for two sets of unemployment: the original indigenous workers and their migrant replacements.

What happens now that the whole economy is to an extent run on similar lines? The next time the economy turns down, the taxpayer will pay for all those amongst the millions of legal and illegal migrants who become un- or under-employed. Together, with the additional huge costs of over-stretched infrastructure, that will have to be augmented or restructured, this means that immigration is now a major part of the reason for the ratcheting ever upwards of the proportion of everyones income taken as taxation. The consequence is a progressive disincentive to work for ever larger slices of what we used to call the working classes.

"It's better that you weren't in the country": MP's "BNP talk" to disaffected Muslims sparks New Labour battle

2006-08-18T08:13:00.000+01:00

The immigration debate came full circle on August 15, 2006, when one of the Governments own MPs told legal migrants to go home. The Asian Labour MP for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik, speaking on his regional BBCTV news, called for British resident Muslims who don't like living here and think its better in Muslim countries that its better that you werent in the country. This met with an immediate reaction from the very moderate Asian Labour dignitary, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, who (speaking on the same programme) described Maliks statement as BNP talk.

In fact, such a policy would be extreme even for the BNP. The BNP certainly advocates repatriation of legal migrants, but only voluntary repatriation and, at least in public, does not admonish migrants to return home. Malik said nothing about choice and was referring not so much to recent arrivals as second- and third-generation Asian Muslims those from families long established here which research byNOP/ Channel4 Dispatches only the previous week had revealed as those most likely to give passive or active support to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Such a pronouncement, one might imagine, would be political suicide for any MP, let alone a Labour MP; but presumably because he was Asian himself, Malik thought he was protected. It will be lost on no-one that the Government has vilified as racist anyone who simply raised the immigration issue, let alone anyone making such incendiary comments. Me, for instance, when I outlined simple facts, not controversial proposals or rhetoric like this. Why is the one labelled racist and the other merely as talking as if racist? How do we know that Malik is not racist or xenophobic re other Asian or Muslim groups other than the one he is a member of himself? We know that some of the worst bad feeling is between different Asian and different Muslim populations. I was falsely accused of racism for exposing an Eastern European immigration scam; the fact that East Europeans are white Caucasian my own race did not stop anyone jumping to a pejorative conclusion. So why is Malik exempt? Why is the law for the rest of us not the law for the political classes?

Well, it seems that Mr Malik does believe that the political classes should not be exempt; and especially not Labour MPs. Two years before he had slapped down a fellow Labour MP, Phil Woolas, who was trying to draw attention to another form of black-on-white racial violence (see pages 130-131, below). Malik said: The comments feed far-right organisations like the BNP who hijack the remarks Mr Woolas has no basis for his view and is clearly out of line with Labour Party thinking.

What a beautiful, ironic illustration of the ongoing hypocrisy over immigration!

Asylum corruption exposé shows Blair's failure to close down this route of bogus immigration

2006-08-01T09:20:00.000+01:00

Exposés dont come more spectacular than that of Immigration Service worker Joseph Dzumbira and his in-house (and out-sourced) accomplices. He couldnt have been caught more red-handed if hed slit his own wrists.

Since I kick-started two years ago the unravelling of the total fiasco that is the immigration and asylum system, I knew there were lots of beans to spill -- and believe me there are plenty more. But just as I was starting to think that things really couldnt get that much worse for the Government .. they just did.

As a former immigration caseworker myself, I immediately recognised the core fact of this latest scandal: that nobody checks if someone is from the country they claim theyre from. We had no training whatsoever in what the passports of all the various countries looked like -- even what colour the cover should be -- and very few staff were given any training in forgery detection. So how could we check that any application to us was above-board?

I used to work in a part of the IND (Immigration & Nationality Directorate) called Managed Migration -- great joke name -- handling the full range of immigration applications. We didnt meet would-be migrants face-to-face like Dzumbira met his asylum applicants, but we had plenty of knowledge of Dzumbiras colleagues in the aptly named Lunar House at Croydon.

The ineptitude of Lunar House staff was legendary: necessary computer case-notes were ultra brief (if there were any at all), often cryptic, ungrammatical and leaving us in the dark about anything much about how the applicant had previously been dealt with. As it was for us, pay was appallingly low, and because of this and the location out at Croydon, recruitment and retention of staff was a major problem. The Home Office was bound to end up with plenty of duds.

We did meet face-to-face one of Dzumbiras colleagues: a man originally from Ghana gave us all a day-long asylum awareness training day. We looked forward to this because it wasnt the usual equal opportunities and diversity baloney: we thought we might learn something. Well his English was so bad nobody could understand more than the odd word he said! I complained that he did not get to first base as someone fit to have a teaching role, and for that I was threatened with a disciplinary interview for racism!

The Home Office is riven with political correctness fascism, which is the big backlash against ordinary people by the political classes because we all just kept up with the Joneses instead of thinking politics like them. The Home Office likes to employ and promote non-whites (and women, gays, disabled). They reckon it a bonus if they can find (ex-)nationals from the parts of the world where applicants most often come form. The problem is that in Africa corruption in public administration is endemic. So if you employ people who formerly lived there or are connected with people there, then you run the risk of the same sort of corruption becoming embedded in our own Civil Service. If you employ them just where their fellow nationals would find them most useful to be corrupt -- in immigration -- then what do you expect?

Remember the case recently of a senior Home office immigration officer who was found to be himself an illegal immigrant?

I personally handled many very suspicious applications from African nationals claiming to want to come here as students. I was not allowed to scrutinise these -- I was hauled in for interview and told not to do necessary checks because it took too long and ... get this ... because it was not my job! Was this so that would-be migrants didnt need to try the asylum route and so spoil Tony Blairs targets for reduced asylum figures?

Tony Blair has been telling us that hes closed off the asylum route for bogus immigration. The Sun newspaper's exposé has shown as clearly as it could that he hasnt.

Counting Out John Reid

2006-07-27T11:40:00.000+01:00

It looks like John Reid is out for the count. So the much trumpeted e-border will be in place not next year as we had been led to believe but 2014: eight years away. In the meantime, the new Home Secretary tells us that we will have a resumption of embarkation controls in respect of counting people out.

And what about counting people in?! Of the 90 million inward passenger movements annually we need to have a record of the number and who they are. We used to have this .. until the year that Tony Blair came to power and the then Home secretary abolished these very controls.

This is what Reid said in the Commons: "We will progressively reinstate exit, ie embarkation controls in stages, starting with the higher risk routes and people, identify who overstays and count everyone in and out by 2014."

The purpose of implementation this way round is of course to find some real numbers that can be subtracted from the rising estimates of the numbers of illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers that remain here. News management. Wasnt that what John Reid said he would not do? Border checks in and out need to be total, for all routes and all ports -- otherwise they will be easily circumvented -- and they need to be introduced now, not almost a decade hence -- with or without a dedicated IT system in place, which is the excuse for the long delay. There are to be "tougher checks abroad" for those requiring VISAs, but this amounts merely to taking fingerprints and other biometrics (iris scans?). The problem is that anything less than across-the-board provision allows wholesale circumvention. It is fatuous to claim that "tougher checks abroad" will ensure that everyone is above board before they set off to travel here: at the moment anyone can come here without being checked at a port of entry in any way at all!

The same news management imperative was all too apparent with the attempt at the weekend to head off the bad news of the Commons Select Committees scathing attack on the Immigration & Nationality Directorate. Instead of taking it out of the clutches of the fatal culture at the Home Office, Reid told us that it will be placed merely at arms length. Just the job for both ministers and mandarins to wash their hands of the whole immigration and asylum debacle whilst at the same time keeping it under the target culture and the various forms of the dead hand of bad government that the Home Office and their political masters conspire to achieve.

There is even some blatant buck-passing in the shape of forcing airlines to provide more information on passengers. Since when did the Home Office and our overseas VISA sections divest control of our borders to foreign national carriers and airline companies?

Some risible gesturing is also in there with the idea of nice new uniforms for the Immigration Service frontline. Lady Mar had something to say about that on the BBC yesterday. She is the immigration judge who finally resigned in disgust at the non-expulsion of those she ordered to be deported or removed. She pointed out that the first thing to get right was to have round-the-clock staff at Heathrow. (They also need to be trained properly, given the equipment they need, and stationed permanently instead of in flying squads.)

In essence it is quite simple what needs to be done, but neither Reid nor anyone else in Government or at the Home Office seem remotely inclined even to suggest what needs doing. On the basis that the Home Office will remain an ongoing basket case neither capable nor desirous of performing the first function of a state: to maintain borders .. then we must erect an internal gateway system to make up for the absence of an external one.

In a nutshell, this is a bit like the notion behind Colditz. Get all of the bits of administration that need to work together but are actually barely on speaking terms and put them together in a brand new ministry. So instead of sinking the IND somewhere in the English Channel, it needs to be wedded to the new ID card database, the checking function currently non-existent within the DWP (that is supposed to look at the immigration history of those applying for national insurance numbers, benefits, etc), and so on. We can then require anyone making an initial attempt to access any government provided service to supply a fully evidenced residence history. In this way we may not be deporting the millions of people who should not be here and the still more millions that will arrive before 2014, but the fact that they cant live a normal life like the rest of us will encourage them to find a normal life elsewhere.

Of course, we live in hope that the Home Office will get sorted and actually go looking for illegals, but dont hold your breath; especially as for most hues of government this will be regarded as politically unfeasible. What is politically realistic is a new department that threatens the empires of old ones by hiving off functions if the likes of the Home Office and the DWP cant get them right.

If the Lebanon had a border control system as unbefitting the name as we have, we would call it a failed state. Britain in this respect indeed is a failed state, and instead of fighting this ridiculous situation, our supposed prize fighter, John Reid, appears to have no sooner turned up for the bout than knocked himself out cold.

Reid Knows the Home Office Won't Get Sorted

2006-07-21T20:07:00.000+01:00

John Reid has declared himself to be part of the Home Office farce with comical promises and a worst possible solution for the chunk of his Department concerned with immigration and asylum.

We can imagine the mutual back-slapping between the new Home Secretary and Whitehall mandarins when it was agreed to tow the Immigration & Nationality Directorate out of the harbour and scuttle it. The "arms length" at which the IND will be from both Home Office senior management and ministers is the perfect way for both sides to wash their hands of the immigration and asylum debacle. "Semi-autonomous" means that both Whitehall and Government can distance themselves from the endless bad news and be seen to be trying to do something about the problem in the light of the clear dysfunction across the whole of the Home Office; whilst at the same time, the Government will of course retain the dead hand of its news management 'target culture' grip: it will be that much more direct and so even worse.

Another turn in Reids vaudeville act on Wednesday was his announcement that he will clear the backlog of failed asylum seekers in five years. This is crazier than the pronouncement by the outgoing immigration minister Tony McNulty on BBC Newsnight that all illegal immigrants will be removed in ten years. Had Mr Reid not read the news from his own department the night before? The BBC had revealed that a trawl through Whitehalls Cinderella department had revealed rather a lot of cardboard files on windowsills covered in post-it notes. The total number of failed asylum seekers was not the 200,000 plus that the Home Office previously had poo-pooed as being an excessive estimate, but 450,000; albeit that who knows how many may have left the country. As with McNultys laughable promise re illegal migrants, the problem is that there is no tracking of where any of these people are. Then there is the problem that not just removal but even the rarer deportation are completely unreliable stats: any individual so labelled may well be roaming the streets months after they were supposedly expelled. At the current rate of removal by the Immigration Service, in five years the backlog of failed asylum seekers will have been reduced by about one per cent. Mr Reid knows that there is no danger of him being around to explain this.

There were other scarcely less believable forecasts of cutting down the time it takes to process applications to less than 10% of what it takes at the moment, and a guffaw-inducing ultra precise prediction of a reduction in applications that are expected to come in. As to what actually was to be the means of doing any of what Reid announced, we are possibly to find out next week. When Parliament is safely in recess? Or when the Government has decided what it might do in the light of the tone of the response to Wednesdays kite flying?

The problems at the Home Office are at every level and in every nook and cranny. There is no prospect in the short to medium term, if ever, of it becoming fit for purpose other than for its starring role as Whitehall standing joke. Cutting a small proportion of head office staff and deploying them to the periphery is not going to do very much. Staff don't have the training to do the jobs they do already, management is of poor quality given the longstanding recruitment problems, and those at the top are politically driven appointments of those who may think radically but have little idea how to implement the very different sort of radical changes neded. There is a culture of an old creaking way of doing Government hand-in-hand with the glorious excuse of being the lead Government department for equal opportunities and diversity. Meta issues grab Home Office minds and not only distract from the real work they are supposed to do but directly hinder implementation of policy. The ethos of political correctness fascism ensures that applicants to migrate here are regarded as having an inalienable right to do so unless special reason is found not to admit them. Poorly trained staff under pressure not to reject more than a very small proportion and not to waste time checking evidence -- on pain of disciplinary action -- are forced to comply with the Home Offices refusal to perform a gateway function. This suits both senior management and their political masters, given that life is made easier all round and the political correctness outlook of the political classes is a shared one.

What is needed is radical action based on the assumption that the Home Office is an ongoing basket case. Instead of a quasi independent IND there has to be a genuinely separate Government department, and one that has the capacity to remove functions from the Home Office and also from the DWP -- which catastrophically fails to check the immigration status of those claiming benefits or trying to get a National Insurance number. Threatening empire is perhaps the only language mandarins understand. The new ministry should be the home of the ID card database, which can be used as the focus of an integrated system to prevent those living here illegally from having a normal life. If the Home Office cant and wont act as a gateway for our borders, then we will have to erect internal gateways, where detailed residence history will have to be provided the fist time an individual makes an attempt to access benefits, claim tax credits, get a passport or a NINO, etc. A new ministry that houses the various bits that for a long time have not been on speaking terms might seem like the rationale behind Colditz, but it cannot conceiveably be worse than the status quo!

Who's right: the Home Office bosses' union or John Reid?

2006-06-06T08:52:00.000+01:00

Is it the Home Office that is 'dysfunctional', as John Reid has claimed, or is it Reid and his predecessors as ministers who are mainly responsible?

As a Home Office employee who was sacked so as to cover the lies of Home Office senior civil servants and ministers, I find the comments by Jonathan Baum of the top civil servants' union, the First Division Association (FDA), not credible. The truth is hidden behind the understatement: that ministers have been 'not very competent'. To be sure, they have been grossly incompetent, not to mention deceitful. They are very much part of the problem, but the problem is much wider and lies at the heart of the Home Office.

It was so blindingly obvious working within the IND (Immigration & Nationality Directorate) nothing at all within the immigration system worked, that it simply cannot be that ministers are responsible for the bottomless mess in the Civil Service and by contrast, senior civil servants are blameless. If ministers left the Home Office completely to its own devices, with no political targets to meet, then the immigration system would be even more exposed for what it is: no system at all. There is no immigration system beyond what is really rubber stamping and tokenism. Other than that, the immigration system consists of a continuous PR exercise to try to convince everyone that there is one.

Senior civil servants lied when they passed the blame downwards to lower management within the Sheffield office of managed migration when it happened to be in this office that the complete failure to apply the immigration rules to whole steams of casework and sometimes across the board was revealed.

Senior civil servants even commissioned a whitewash report - the Sutton report - to try to make this lie stick. For those who actually read the report, in conjunction with the investigation into my disclosures, it was all too apparent that the blame lay at the top, not near the bottom. For Jonathan Baum to complain that top management is unfairly attacked when they cannot answer back is more than a bit rich. What about the staff that top brass unfairly denigrate? Not only can they not answer back, but if they try they are either demoted or lose their jobs - and may be falsely accused of racism to boot.

The Home Office is still claiming a public interest defence as to why it will not disclose any documents to/from senior management and ministers regarding the illegal failure to apply immigration rules in regular backlog clearance exercises coded 'BRACE' - which still went on after I came forward and are still practiced today. This is despite non-compliance notices served by the Information Commissioner's office, which continues to back my efforts to secure disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act - a request I submitted back on January 3, 2005, just three days after the Act came into force. Given the war between the Home Office and Government, then why is the Home Office not now revealing what went on if it is all the fault of ministers? Answer: because mandarins and senior managers are the culprits at least as much as are ministers. Given that it would be the ministerial more than the Departmental fan that the proverbial would hit, then evidently mandarins feel they have a lot to answer for.

Looking at the wider IND debacle: senior civil servants have a clear public duty to alert not just ministers but cross-party committees, the National Audit Office and other regulatory bodies to what is clearly not working and unfeasible. A system as dire as that of the IND is not something that has formed over the course of one Government but over several. So mandarins do not have the excuse that they protested but were unheeded by their political masters. Why was nothing done ten years ago when the administration changed political hue?

The only explanation is that the rot is not merely the fault of incompetent ministers, or that politicians generally are profoundly out-of-touch. It must be that the wider political class - including senior civil servants - are radically out-of-touch, with a head-in-the-sand attitude to reality in the service of sticking to political shibboleths.

Yes, certainly there has been the problem of people clearly unsuitable to manage large organisations being put in charge; and yes of course there has been a wholesale politicisation that has not only neutralised healthy inertial response to unworkable policy proposal, but has led to a chronic short-termism that fatally channelled energy and attention to meeting Government political targets and away from the job itself.

Looked at one way these are contributory roots, but they are really themselves symptoms of a kind of political madness. The madness was evident daily in my working life at the Home Office. Instead of the job we were supposed to do, what obsessed the Department right down to the line managers of junior caseworkers were tangential matters.

Not only was there a relentless target culture of meeting stats irrespective of how completely we were made to fall down on the job, but a pervasive culture concerning 'equal opportunities and diversity' that actively oppressed staff and 'celebrated' all that was 'other': not least the non-native people whose applications we were supposedly processing. This provided excuse and even vindication for what in any other light was doing the job extraordinarily badly, if at all.

Instead of training that anyone could see would be essential - such as what the passports of different countries looked like, and how we could spot forgeries: which we never received - we were sent on courses concerned with an equal opportunities informed attitude to co-workers. The IND was more concerned with forcing behaviour change between staff than with properly dealing with applications to migrate, even when they were clearly and systematically fraudulent.

What was (and is: it continues of course) down to an overt political attack on ordinary and perfectly decent people, went hand-in-hand with a wilful failure to act in a gate-keeping role to would-be new entrants to Britain. Political correctness fascism in its various manifestations was pursued zealously, as if this focus on meta-work made up for abject failure in the main task at hand.

A similar unholy alliance of outlook was evident in all sub-divisions of the Home Office, not least the Probation Service. As the recent news, an Employment Tribunal case, my own experience in failing at the final recruitment hurdle, and an insider's view in the Sundays this week all testify: there is an attitude to criminals that they be shown 'empathy' rather than be controlled. 'Empathy' is a mantra at the PS, and is a consideration that amounts to criminals being held in higher regard than the public. There could be no more supreme irony given that the probation service is supposed to be protecting us from the very criminals in its charge. 'Empathy' explains the astounding level of direct sex discrimination against male would-de recruits.

The same outlook again was apparent in the plethora of units set up to enact some latest initiative, together with the research sections that academics have now called to boycott because of the findings deliberately twisted to suit the Home Office's own bizarre take on its own motto ('building a safe, just and tolerant society'). A classic case was the team that produced the Sexual Offences Review ('Setting the Boundaries') that gave us the absurdly Kafkaesque new rape laws. There are examples wherever you look in the Home Office: radical mismanagement and political correctness fascism of some form have been productive bedfellows. The mindset that allows this farce is evident across the political class and beyond; certainly not just in politicians per se.

The First Division Association's attack should be taken at most as a corrective to John Reid's 'not me guv' hand-washing. Ministers certainly are guilty of foisting on the Home Office policy that they know will not work - we know that New Labour has never wanted an immigration system to work, but instead an open door to further the championing of the political Left's 'internationalism' and its political correctness fascism of holding in esteem the foreigner over the native; especially given that new entrants will disproportionately vote Labour. Even so, still more guilty is the Home Office for not only presiding over this disgrace but actively colluding in disguising the reality from scrutiny - and scrutiny not just by the general public, but by official bodies whose job is regulation to ensure that government departments work in the public interest.

John Reid certainly is himself part of the great immigration fiction that the Government continues to flog us; but nonetheless, his attack on the Home Office as 'dysfunctional' is closer to the truth than is the senior civil servants' union's attack on him.

Home Office 'dispersal' opposite to integration

2006-06-06T08:28:00.000+01:00

It has long been known, and conceded by the Home Office, that asylum seekers - and those whose immigration status is (supposedly) pending and have been given supposedly temporary 'indefinite leave to remain' - are sent to various parts of the country. This is described by the Government as "dispersal", but as with all things from the Government, the term is radically misleading.

The word 'dispersal' means 'spreading around', or 'diluting', but in the context here it clearly signifies an attempt to lower the impact of immigration by avoiding concentration - specifically in London, but also generally. We have never been told the detail of this 'dispersal', and it turns out that far from spreading around or diluting, what has been the policy and practice is not avoiding but actually creating concentration. This concentration is not in the general community - the use of the term 'community' here is about as apposite as in 'care in the community'. There is no community involvement at all; or rather, no community involvement by the wider society, but instead a great deal of community involvement by these people collectively themselves; this being aided and abetted by the Government.

When by comparison to the levels of immigration today, minuscule numbers arrived from Kenya and Uganda (a very few tens of thousands in the 1960s), Leicester City Council took out ads to persuade them not to come to Leicester to join their fellow nationals but to go elsewhere. This was in the interests of integration - albeit that Council leaders may have been thinking more about possible negative reaction by the majority population rather than helping new settlers to assimilate.

How different then is the Government's current (or very recent) stance that has now been revealed: to actually concentrate fellow nationals. This is the direct facilitation of 'chain migration'. 'Chain migration' is the exponential growth of geographically demarcated enclaves of migrants of the same nationality or even of sub-groups of one nationality (according to region or city of origin, religion, etc). A 'migrant enclave' is the term used in polite discussion - well, until very late in the day, extremely impolite discussion - of what some would say pejoratively might be referred to as a 'ghetto'. It's the same thing.

What (the still restricted) discussion about immigration has singularly failed to engage with, is that the cohesiveness within a migrant enclave is the really profound behaviour and strong emotion concerning immigration. The mirror to this is a hostility to the majority community without. Both of these phenomena are more potent that what has been wrongly supposed to be the main problem: the hostility of the majority community to the minority new arrivals. All that we see is down to universal human social psychology. People always behave this way.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the behaviour of new arrivals in adamantly sticking together -- they feel they have to (and with some good reason as well as through paranoia), to survive. Likewise there is nothing wrong with the indigenous population feeling what is a kind of jealousy of the vibrant though insular community spirit of the new arrivals who have seeded themselves and rapidly grown in an isolated area in their midst. It is a spirit that many within the 'white' population are themselves all too aware that they have largely lost. This 'jealousy' by the majority is not as potent as the social centripetal and centrifugal forces (cohesiveness and hostility to the outside) experienced by members of the new minority. None of these feelings are anybody's 'fault'. This is not in any way a blame game. It is simply pointing out a reality. Migrant enclaves are all too easy to allow to grow and grow; and the larger and faster they grow, the less reason there is for individuals within them to integrate into wider society.

Policy that actually bolsters instead of helping to break down migrant enclaves; far from contributing to integration, clearly hinders it. What on earth did the Home Office think it was doing? Here blame is appropriate. Blame can most certainly be laid at the door of the Home Office for this.

Looking at the reality of the migrant enclave is not a view from the political Right: it is precisely what David Goodheart has been arguing for some time. David Goodheart is the editor of the Left's leading publication, Prospect Magazine. He is the author of a major report published by the Left thinktank, Demos, just a month ago; on how to maintain and create a sense of Britishness. The problem of the impact on the cohesiveness of the wider community of the migrant enclave is his central topic.

What does the Home Office think it is doing, knowingly importing the protagonists of major conflicts into Britain? Quite evidently these conflicts are perpetuated between the rival groups once they are established here. The 'dispersal' policy is an admittance by the Government that this problem exists and that it is aware of it and trying to do something about it. Why then does is this not a major factor in considering whether refuge should be given to any individual? If someone is likely to play some role in a conflict, to reflect what he was doing or was likely to have been doing in his native country: isn't this of itself good grounds for refusing asylum?

If the Government is in trouble for bringing a war to another nation far away from our borders (Iraq), then how much more trouble should it be in for bringing wars that are nothing to do with us - and of no interest to us - on to our own streets? And what if these conflicts turn out to be in some way related to the Iraq debacle, so that one or more of the belligerent groups turns on Britain itself?

Perhaps the biggest question all this raises relates to all that we have learnt in the past two or three weeks about Home Office and especially IND meltdown. How is it that the Home Office does not know - and evidently does not care about - the identity or whereabouts of those supposedly on its books, as it were, in the immigration system (sic); yet it has the wherewithal and puts in the effort to micromanage where many of these individuals are allowed to live? Should not the Government be expending (transferring) this effort in stopping illegal immigration and bogus asylum seekers from getting into the country in the first place? And failing that, to identify and then expel them? The whole exercise looks very much like the sort of attention to detail that is a distraction from failure to see or to be able to do anything about the main issue.

'Dysfunctional' only 'some of the time'?

2006-05-26T15:27:00.000+01:00

John Reid underestimates the seriousness of the mess at the Home Office. The Department has even more intractabler problems than have so far been discussed. Reid, in his statement to a commons select committee, said that he did not believe that the Home Office was "intrinsically dysfunctional... but I do believe from time to time it is dysfunctional". Well, he acknowledges major failure in pretty well all respects: leadership, management, systems and processes. The question is: what is at the root of this comprehensive failure?

Apart from the answers that a management consultant could provide, there is the obvious difficulty intrinsic to the interface between the Civil Service and its political masters, but made much worse by the politicisation of the Civil Service to perform more like an ongoing PR exercise than to do its actual job. Simon Jenkins (Guardian) describes it as a power hungry empire building of short-termism: "a Valhalla of bureaucracy's living dead beyond even the satire of Dickens's Department of Circumlocution". But there is something else, and it is a real deep-seated cause. I would venture that you cannot separate the acknowledged major failure from the political issue that the Home Office is riven with political correctness fascism. This distracts from and re-prioritises what the Home Office as a whole and its constituent divisions should actually be doing, and hinders communication upwards and between directorates.

This is not, as at the BBC, more an aggregate result of the political bias of individuals than a 'line' that the organisation takes; but in many respects official policy.

The PC fascist stance is the backlash to end all backlashes against ordinary people by the political Left orientated political classes, whereby anyone and everyone (women, gays, the disabled, the non-native) are considered more worthy than are ordinary people (specifically men), who are falsely portrayed as the mirror image of the supposedly unblameworthy.

It was beautifully illustrated in the actual refusal to apologise for the labelling of 2,700 people as guilty of crimes of which they were not even accused -- flouting a principle of justice even more fundamental than that of 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is demonstrated across the Home Office: for example, in the target to employ women in half of all senior posts -- necessarily requiring massive direct discrimination against men; in the campaign to imprison innocent men accused of rape by the Kafkaesque rape law (reversing the burden of proof) that it has recently enacted as a result of its own Sex Offences Review ('Setting the Boundaries'), which completely ignored the record number of objections to proposals; in the extreme difficulty men encounter in being recruited to the Probation Service, which displays an amazing attitude towards criminals (in that they are supposed victims of of 'patriarchal society' -- sex offenders excepted, of course: they are regarded as 'patriarchy' incarnate). And so on: there are examples galore.

Nothing this pernicious has ever held sway within the establishment of a modern society. It does of course apply across the West generally, not just in the UK and in the Home Office; but the Home Office is a blatant case. In what is the self-proclaimed 'lead department' in UK government when it comes to 'equal opportunity and diversity', this is alarming to say the very least.

The customer is never right: extraordinary blame shifting by a dysfunctional Straw

2006-05-25T17:56:00.000+01:00

The customer is never right with this Government or the Home Office, and certainly not, according to former Home Secretary Jack Straw. The customer, he should be reminded, is the entire population that is in direct contact in various ways with components of the Department, and in particular the taxpayer who pays for it; and relies on it for the most important kinds of protection. The customers are not the asylum seekers, criminals and others that are those with which the Home Office fails to deal with on our behalf.

Straw claimed today that the "fundamental problem" with the Home Office is not the staff or the top civil servants or ministers, but many of its "customers", whom he described as "dysfunctional individuals". They are a "burden" and a "challenge", he said.

This is actually the Home Office attitude to the ordinary person in its doctrine of political correctness fascism - the great backlash against ordinary people - that the biggest Government department has willingly lapped up and which now distorts and dictates the priorities of this 'roll on-roll off' dangerous ship of state.

Other Government departments don't have such problems with its "customers", our Jack opines. We are, apparently, "willing volunteers". Indeed we are - though not now so willing - in an experiment perhaps not unlike the medical one that recently famously went wrong.

The fallout from the great Home Office "hurricane" (as its chief today described recent events) is producing daily insights into the bizarre thinking of our daft leaders. In the logic of PC fascism, non-native people are more worthy than the Home Office's actual customers, the UK population - or at least they were. Is New Labour now trying to outdo the 'far right'? I don't recall anyone even from the BNP referring to recent migrants as "dysfunctional". We would of course have heard about that, and would still be hearing about it however long ago it had been said.

Steve Moxon

Illegal immigrants: why the total must be in the millions

2006-05-23T18:29:00.000+01:00

The Government now can't seem to make up its mind whether or not it has an estimate for the total number of illegal immigrants living in Britain. Tony Blair hid behind an old quote of Michael Howard's during Prime Minister's Questions: that by rights they should not have a clue. Yet during the run-up to the last election it was leaked that the Government did indeed have an estimate, and one that it had itself commissioned. This was from Professor Salt (of the Migration Research Unit at University College London); that there were half a million. John Reid referred to it in interview on Wednesday - though shrinking it by a hundred thousand, rather than pointing out the many respects in which it is a heavy under-count.

Salt's total does not include all those not working - likely to be the majority of illegal migrants - nor does it include dependents. That will be a very large number, in line with immigration service practice of counting whole groups of people who are even vaguely related as one case. Including, instead of bizarrely excluding these two pools of migrants straight away takes the total to over a million, but that is just the start. As Migrationwatch pointed out shortly after the leak, the estimate is based on figures then already five years out-of-date and thereby missing not only the peak in bogus asylum applications but also much of the cumulative effect of the combined methods of illegal entry.

What really torpedoes the credibility of the measure though, is how the Professor came up with his estimate. It was by an international comparison. The problem is that such a comparison is not valid for Britain. Salt looked at various countries around the world where there had been amnesties given to illegal entrants. He compared the numbers who came out of the woodwork with the numbers who had arrived through legal application, and came up with a ratio of 20%. He then applied this to Britain. He reckons that, of the supposed three million here legally, there are an additional one-fifth of that number living illegally. That would be 600,000 - which he rounded down to a slightly less scary half a million.

Such a calculation - or rather one that arrived at the million plus more proper total - would be reasonable if Britain was a destination similar to other nations, but the UK, quite apart from its uniqueness (the USA apart) in being a fully developed wealthy post-industrial country with an uncapped mass immigration policy, is special for several reasons. It is unusual in having the international language of English as the native tongue. This makes life much more feasible for a migrant. We have US style free labour laws combined with EU style generous welfare benefits; and we also have a growing economy. There are the famously non-existent checks on anyone entering the country and the relentless determination of the Home Office not to pursue anyone, regardless of how flagrantly they contravene immigration law. Most of all, not least because of our Commonwealth history, we have a large number of migrant enclaves of various nationalities, and various sub-groups of nationalities according to religion, and region or even city of origin, and so on. This acts as a crucial magnet that accelerates in so-called 'chain migration'. After millions make a beeline for the UK, there develops a dynamic aspect to considerably boost the flow: enclaves suck in people at an ever faster rate.

We have everything a would-be migrant needs: a destination that is easy to enter clandestinely or fraudulently and easy to remain in even as an indefinite overstayer on a legitimate visa; but which also provides a home-from-home community of fellow nationals within a wider community that speaks the international language. So many of his fellow nationals are already here that some of them may be from the would-be migrant's own village/town or even his own relatives. We have chain migration on several levels right down to the extended family. The larger the community and the better the support, the easier it is to facilitate illegal entry and to remain undetected. Perfect.

A further effect then comes into play. Because the system is so over-loaded with applicants, and because of the official 'no ceiling' policy and tradition of an open arms welcome, there is a hopeless mismatch between admitting people and refusing or ejecting them. There seems no point in policing a system that is so open to abuse and to being circumvented. The immigration service gives up, and word gets out that Britain is an even easier place to get in to and stay in than anyone had dared to imagine. As legal migration accelerates, so does all of the kinds of illegal migration. Making everything easier doesn't just mean that would-be illegals get in legitimately, but that more of those who previously had no hope at all - and still haven't by any legal route - try their luck by blatant fraud, bending the rules or smuggling themselves in; either way knowing that at the very worst they won't be treated harshly and have a very good chance of simply being left alone.

Add all of the factors together that make Britain special and an international comparison is entirely inappropriate when applied to Britain. The total, remember, was already over a million. With the necessary adjustments to compensate for our special status: who knows how many millions the true total of illegal immigrants runs to. No one dares even to suggest that they might venture a guess.

The guesstimate the Government uses is a very indirect, what might be called a top-down approach. Can we work out in another way the number of illegal migrants? Well, instead we could look from the bottom up, as it were: by taking samples of the four general non-legal routes of entry and extrapolating them and adding these together. The four routes are: clandestine entry through a port, overstaying a visa, illegal switching from one immigration category to another, and fraudulent application.

Unfortunately, only one of these - clandestine entry - is relatively easy to sample and so to measure. In producing a report, Welcome to the Asylum, for the Centre for Policy Studies, Harriet Sergeant had spent several weeks with immigration service staff at Dover. She saw how many illegals were apprehended as they were being smuggled in lorries, and worked out according to the small fraction of traffic searched what the rate would be each month. Extrapolating to the whole year she came to the startling figure of 300,000. That is for just the one port, and in respect of the method of entry least favoured by migrants: only those who would be regarded with special suspicion need hide in lorries.

The upshot is that an estimate from the bottom-up, as it were, will also show that the Government's guesstimate is a joke.

Why we are in this comprehensively ridiculous situation is at root down to a complete absence of political will; or rather, a bizarre will of political correctness fascism. This is the backlash to end all backlashes, by the establishment now of the political Left that seeks revenge on the ordinary person -- specifically the ordinary man -- for not 'rising up', as it were, as he was expected and urged to do. The quintessential non-ordinary man is someone who does not even come from the country or from anywhere within the capitalist West, but is a new arrival, innocent of all charges, you could say.

We really do live in strange and unprecedented times.

Steve Moxon

Fundamental dis-government in the Home Office stance over mis-labelling men as criminals

2006-05-21T12:27:00.000+01:00

The now officially "dysfunctional" Home Office in saying that it has to "err on the side of caution" in refusing to apologise for falsely labelling 1,500 men as criminals (resulting in them actually being denied jobs and even university places): is any more confirmation needed that there is the very opposite of justice in the Government department that is itself governed by the rules of political correctness fascism?

The Home Office spokesman said that: "The Criminal Records Bureau's first and foremost priority is to help protect children and vulnerable adults". Clearly it is not. Its very first and foremost duty is not to falsely label innocent men as guilty, when the possibility of guilt is not even in question. This is even more fundamental than the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' in a court of law, which the Home Office has also comprehensively overturned in the Kafkaesque rape law that it has recently enacted as a result of its own Sex Offences Review ('Setting the Boundaries'), which completely ignored the record number of objections to proposals.

The issue is not diminished by the low proportion of CRB checks that result in such blatant injustice: it is the attitude of the Home Office in dismissing them as justified collateral that is so indicative of the highly dangerous times that we are entering.

The mis-application of a 'precautionary principle' at progressively earlier stages of consideration - here re a list ahead of being on any list of being considered for a job - inevitably results in profound injustice and the profound opposite of the most basic principles of justice. In the end it can lead to the labelling of all men as criminal, however unblemished is their character.

This is of course a trend to which the Home Office desires. Being governed by the principle of political correctness fascism, which is the backlash to end all backlashes against ordinary people by the political Left orientated political classes; then anyone and everyone (women, gays, the disabled, the non-native) are considered more worthy than are men. Men are falsely portrayed as the mirror image of the supposedly unblameworthy.

Nothing this pernicious has ever held sway within the establishment of a society. It does of course apply across the West generally, not just in the UK and in the Home Office, but the Home Office is a blatant case, and in the 'lead department' in UK government when it comes to 'equal opportunity and diversity' this is alarming to say the very least.

The Home Office's motto about justice is now very much like the deception of 'arbeit mach frei'.

Introduction: The Abandoned Line

2006-05-21T11:51:00.000+01:00

This book is about the profound failure of Home Office immigration/ asylum policy and the inability to put even the flawed policy into practice. Far from just being a problem of tens of thousands of East Europeans slipping illegally into Britain ahead of Mayday 2004 - as Government apologists would have you believe - I reveal how the systematic abuses of procedure and open invitation to fraud (instigated and allowed by the Home Office at ministerial and top management levels) extend across the whole of Managed Migration.

This applies to all of the different types of cases: in particular students, marriage and dependent relatives. There are fundamental problems with both the general ways of working and all the various ways to avoid bothering to apply particular immigration rules. The whole shebang clearly was inspired by what, to most people’s minds, is a bizarre attitude to the relation between British citizens and all the other people in the world.

The Great Immigration Scandal

2006-05-21T10:35:00.000+01:00

On 8 March 2004, I was suspended on full pay from my job as a Home Office immigration caseworker having blown the whistle on widespread abuse and cover-up of the government's policy of 'Managed Migration'. My revelations in the Sunday Times contributed to the resignation of immigration minister Beverley Hughes.

On 26 July 2004, I was dismissed for the crime of "embarrassing ministers", leading to immediate calls in the Sunday Times and Daily Mail for my re-instatement. In the words of David Davis MP, shadow home secretary: "It is outrageous that the man who is primarily responsible for the government having to take a grip of our failing immigration policy has been punished for so doing."

In my book, The Great Immigration Scandal I outline the events that led to the decision that I could no longer participate in a policy that appeared to be at odds with the intentions of Parliament. The book includes an extensive analysis of the relevant scholarly literature in demography, economics and psychology. At the time of publication (August 2004) the book was castigated by the political left but the arguments contained within it have been vindicated by subsequent events.

However my main research interest is not immigration, it is men-women relationships. I am the media spokesman for Mankind and gender fascism. My next book, The Woman Racket, will be published by Imprint Academic in 2007.

Beneath the foreign prisoner debacle

2006-04-28T08:42:00.000+01:00

A huge backlog in expelling (would-be) migrants from Britain has emerged to widen the scandal of foreign prisoners being released into the community. An Immigration Service official responsible for a full range of deportation and 'removal' cases yesterday said that the backlog now runs to 'several years'.

The 'frontline' staff of the Immigration & Nationality Directorate within the Home Office are known to have been suffering from very low morale for some time, and a serious lack of both training and numbers, as well as all the red tape that takes officers away from duty for long periods as soon as any suspect is apprehended. Officials are now complaining that their work is 'pointless' in that it is endlessly frustrated, not least through the working of the Human Rights Act, which repeatedly delays or prevents enforcement action.

The intervention of MPs on behalf of migrants living within their constituency is a particular problem. MPs, whether of the Government or opposition party, in effect wear two hats that can come into conflict. On the one hand they have to toe the party line on immigration policy, but on the other, they have to service the needs of individual constituents. Inevitably all of these individuals become exceptional cases, because, as all immigration advisors know, in the end all cases are at 'the Secretary of State's discretion'. Lobbying the local MP usually obliges him/her to support thin arguments as to why an exception should be made and various legal delaying tactics. Inevitably the conflict is most apparent for Labour MPs, because even apart from political considerations, it is in Labour constituencies where most, and the more desperate (would-be) migrants have come to live.

Of the 'foreign prisoners' released instead of being deported, the regulations are that all of them should be at least considered for deportation as a matter of course, and as from 2003 (when David Blunkett introduced new regulations) anyone who has served a year or more in prison should be sent back to their country of origin automatically. An Immigration Service source revealed that some of the ex-prisoners are here illegally -- that is, that they have not gone through application channels -- but many who have complied with normal procedures will have been given 'indefinite leave to remain' status by the IND. This is not what it seems. The 'leave to remain' is in reality for five years, and only after this can the applicant apply for a British passport. The five-year period is expressly so that each applicant's fitness to remain permanently can be assessed. If this is found wanting, then what would otherwise be a straight progression to citizenship can be blocked. These migrants are therefore 'on the books' of the Home Office, and it is not clear why the IND blames the Prison Service for why it cannot account for their whereabouts.

There is a further big question mark as to whether those 'removed' have actually been deported. As a now retired Immigration Service official explained: deportation is a Secretary of State's direction that carries with it a prohibition on re-entry, normally for three years. By contrast, 'removal' is merely an administrative term that does not necessarily mean that someone has been expelled from Britain. It has not been clarified whether even those ex-prisoners have been deported or merely 'removed'. That the Home Secretary and spokesmen from Government and the Home Office generally continue to use 'removal' and 'deportation' interchangeably is highly misleading. Of course, it would be convenient to use the term 'removal', if in fact an ex-prisoner merely had his application for immigration rescinded and had been earmarked in the system for expulsion.

John Tincey of the Immigration Service union has long complained about the farce of trying to expel people. Two years ago he summed up what was then a dire situation: "From what our members say I would be very surprised if we were removing more than 12 people a month who really do not want to go home". Stories of migrants left at airports simply to disappear back into Britain are explained by lack of staff (two officials are required to be escorts on a flight) and airlines refusing to carry problem passengers. Apart from some flights chartered by the IND for the purpose of sending some migrants home, at best the jury is out that there has been an improvement on anything like the scale that the Government claims.

The pretence that knowledge of the problem of foreign prisoners is recent is also empty. It has been known for several years that even where deportation is along with imprisonment actually part of the sentence, migrants are held for months after the custodial element has been completed. (This exacerbates the serious problem of prison overcrowding and would seem to explain at least in part the breakdown in communication between the IND and the Prison Service.) Back in January 2004, in the annual report by the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers pointed to foreign prisoners being the Home Office's "institutional blind spot"; that the Immigration Service 'unless pressed, was not monitoring those liable to deportation. In many prisons we found many prisoners well beyond sentence with no idea when they might be released and go home." It was in this report (and not this week) that it was first revealed that 1,200 prisoners were officially classed as being "of unknown nationality", and many more were recorded as British but in fact were merely pretending to be so. Then in July 2005, the National Audit Office reported that the Home Office was unable to deport prisoners upon serving their sentences and that instead they has been released.

This latest immigration scandal shows yet again that information is prized out of the Home Office with great difficulty. Despite the repeated intervention of the Information Commissioner, the Home Office is still refusing to abide by the new Freedom of Information law in withholding documents about the systematically illegal backlog clearance exercises that were exposed (by myself). This is what led to the resignation of Beverley Hughes two years ago, and the start of a string of immigration debacles. The Government is still declining a specific request made in January 2005 (as soon as the Act came into force) of copies of communications to/from the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and his then Immigration Minister, Beverley Hughes. It is expected that ministers and top civil servants knew about and orchestrated the failure to apply immigration rules. An enquiry at the time (the Sutton report) had concluded that it was all down to relatively junior management, but the true picture can be found with a closer look at the report together with other documents that emerged through the Home Office's enquiry into my 'whistle-blowing'. The excuse not to disclose is that it is against the 'public interest' to make available any further details. What consideration could trump coming clean about what was indisputably serious illegal activity, the Home Office has also refused to explain.

That the Home Office has been shown to be unconcerned about criminal migrants - the most unworthy of all categories of immigrants - can only confirm that the department is unconcerned about all of the other aspects of the immigration problem, and that there would seem to be systemic failure within the IND. As the former Home Secretary David Blunkett remarked this week: "there are too many people in the system who simply don't care".

Steve Moxon