Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

Spin, not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell the truth. Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

£50,000 hush money for the visa whistleblower

It's the Sack for Steve Moxon, the civil servant who dared to expose asylum abuse

by David Hughes, Political Editor, Daily Mail - August 2, 2004

The Civil Service whistleblower who exposed the East European asylum scandal has been sacked. But Steve Moxon vowed not to be silenced last night and revealed that he plans to bring an industrial tribunal case. A book he has written about the affair will be out later this month.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis called the sacking 'an absolute outrage'.

Another Scandal - Letter to the Editor of the Daily Mail from Steve Moxon, Sheffield - Dec 13, 2004 My book, The Great Immigration Scandal, wasn't 'impounded in what appears to be a ruthless example of censorship by a Home Secretary' (Letters), but is on sale in book-shops nationwide. The censorship the Home Office employed consisted of new immigration minister Des browne pronouncing - based on no evidence whatsoever - that my book spreads prejudice. The Government briefed its friends on the Independent newspaper to label the book as hate-filled and inciting racial hatred. Since then, however, respected Labour MP Frank Field has reviewed my book favourably in the Sunday Times. The Press Complaints Commission is looking into the Independent's defamation, and I'm hoping to bring a libel action. I have an Employment Tribunal pending, though the Government is doing its best to make sure it happens after the General Election.

Mr Moxon, 48, was working for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Sheffield when he exposed systematic abuse by the Government of its own asylum procuedures. He sent details to Mr Davis after ministers ignored his e-mailed warning about thousands of immigrants from Eastern Europe being 'fast tracked' into this country. The resulting scandal led to the resignation of Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes. It also made Home Secretary David Blunkett change the policy on asylum-seekers from former Soviet bloc countries.

Mr Moxon paid with his job, even though the Government's Public Interest Disclosure Act is supposed to protect whistleblowers. "This is a disgraceful abuse of power," said Mr Davis. "He will win any appeal because he has a cast-iron case."

The Home Office argued that Mr Moxon is not protected by the Act because he leaked the material to a Tory MP, but Mr Davies challenged that interpretation. He said: "Nowhere in the legislation does it specify that whistleblowers are not covered if they give material to an MP. This is a parliamentary democracy and where better for this sort of material to go than to MPs?"

Mr Moxon said: "They have not bothered to look at any of the evidence. They haven't got a case at all. I shall be going to an employment tribunal and I have been advised I will win."

Mr Moxon became front page news when he revealed that officials at the Sheffield centre had been secretly told to rubber-stamp visa applications from thousands of self-employed East Europeans. Normal background checks were dropped. The Home Office initially denied the allegations, then claimed that the policy was introduced only to clear a backlog of 7.000 applications. But Miss Hughes was forced to quit after admitting that more than 25,000 migrants had benefited.

Mr Moxon said his book, The Great Immigration Scandal, goes into more detail - "There is a lot more to come out." He said his sacking was part of a pattern by the government which included the case of John Morrison, chief investigator to the Parliamentary Intelligence and Secureity Committee, who was fired last week after criticising tony Blair over the use of Iraqi intelligence.

James Cameron, the UK consul in Romania, was removed after he exposed failings in asylum and immigration policy. Mr Moxon accused the Government of 'shooting the messenger' and added: "The whistleblowers Act really is not worth the paper it is written on."

A Home Office spokesman said Mr Moxon had ben fired as a result of normal internal disciplinary proceedings. It was 'not a matter ministers would be involved in'.

Daily Mail Comment

So much for New Labour morality. When the government was exposed for secretly letting in thousands of Eastern European economic migrants, Downing Street fought desperately, albeit unsuccessfully, to save Beverley Hughes, the Home Office Minister who misled MPs aout the issue.

In contrast it has now sacked Steve Moxon, who leaked the information to newspapers after Ministers ignored his attempts to warn them of the abuses. A similar fate has be-fallen others who have dared expose inconvenient truths.

Remember, this Government introduced legislation it promised would protect whistle- blowers. If the law does not protect Mr Moxon, or prevent the Government from exacting revenge, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Do you agree that Steve Moxon, who exposed the East European asylum scandal, and was then sacked, should be reinstated immediately? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the links above to cast your vote Current results

Current and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running for election could share a platform at public forums in every constituency. They would be presented with  the results of polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that constituency.

The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.  Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged and the results published on this web site.

Here is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote. This example deals with the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty.

Your letters would end: "If you do not answer this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election."

Here's one that will force Tony Blair to resign:

Dear Despite his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable thing and resign without delay.. I would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave the PM with no option but to resign. If I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election. Signed:

Or why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).

Download a printable example of the questionnaire.

It is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in their own constituency, even if this means going against their personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency, they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view of those who elect them. 

It will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy. We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.

Most important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be the result.

Contact your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005. You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected by your representative in that assembly.