Reform Could Strip Pensions From Civil Servants Who Let in Sex Offender Migrants – and Send Them to Jail
Civil servants who have knowingly let foreign sex offenders into Britain would be prosecuted under a Reform UK government, and face losing their jobs and pensions. Camilla Turner in the Telegraph has more.
Nigel Farage’s party said it would legislate to create a new criminal offence of “dishonestly determining an asylum claim”, punishable by up to two years in prison.
Under the policy, civil servants found to have committed the offence would also face a number of potential sanctions, including being forced to give up their civil service pension, and dismissal for gross misconduct.
They would also be investigated by a dedicated police task force, supported by the National Crime Agency, to examine whether they had committed any existing criminal offences, such as perverting the course of justice or misconduct in a public office.
Writing for the Telegraph, Zia Yusuf, Reform’s Head of Policy, said a Reform government would examine all asylum claims going back a decade.
He said: “The first duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe. On that most basic test, both Conservative and Labour governments have failed – and they have failed knowingly.
“What we are witnessing is not a system stretched to breaking point by accident, but a system in which safeguards have been deliberately abandoned, laws disregarded, and responsibility systematically evaded.
“Civil servants inside the Home Office have been waving through asylum claims for foreign nationals with known histories of sexual offending. That is not a grey area.
“Granting asylum to those who are likely to cause harm to British people is unlawful under the immigration rules. And yet it has been allowed to continue, unchecked, for years. The result is that the British state itself has become complicit in endangering women and girls. That must end.”
Reform said that under its policy, foreign national sex offenders would not be allowed into the UK, and any asylum seekers who had been previously charged with sex offences would be deported.
Last month, a Home Office whistleblower claimed that migrants who had been accused of sex offences and other crimes were being granted asylum regardless of their offending.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Amen and amen to that.
An outstanding article, hear hear!
Why stop there? Officials whose action results in compensation to, say, wrongly arrested people should face personal sanctions. Why should the taxpayer always pick up the tab?
Love the sentiment. Add it to the list of things that won’t happen
See it as a shot across the bows to stop the rot now.
Why ?
These treasonous civil servants know it’s a bluff as well as you and I do.
Farage is like Johnson, Starmer and even Trump, all mouth until he gets power then watch the tyre screeching U turns.
I’ll believe it if it happens.
We don’t need a new law. Misfeasance (aka malfeasance) in a public office or negligence should cover it. Just properly apply the laws that were in place at the time of the offence.
Of course any employee should be at risk of losing their job if they breach their job description so badly. Ditto if they break the law.
In general I disagree with taking away pension rights. These are assets acquired from past service. If the service was itself fraudulent there is a case for recovering salary as well as pension accrual for that period.
The specific proposals reported suggest Reform have information about criminal behaviour or decision making outside any reasonable interpretation of the law. Which of us would be surprised by a report that staff at the Home Office might have bent the rules for others from their home nation, region, district or village.
I take your point but this is intended as a punishment and a deterrent.
So yeah bring it on.
We do not generally confiscate the largest asset from criminals or disloyal and incompetent employees. It would be wrong to be vindictive towards the civil service in that regard.
I would certainly agree with damages being claimed either separately or at any criminal or administrative hearing. As in any contract employees can be required to repay unjust gains.
Any offending civil servant might have been faithful for (say) ten years before embarking on a life of cheating and deception later and I would regard it as unjust to simply grab his earlier pension accrual.
we should, of course ourselves, change state pensions to DC (SIPPs) starting with MPs.
Every case should be considered on its merits.
In any event it’s purely academic because nothing will actually happen it’s just political bluster.
The civil service pension is one of the most generous in the world and so it seems reasonable to have this curtailed. It is not as if these snivelling lefty civil serpents are not overpaid as well.
Agreed. Limit all of them not just proven transgressors.
I agree on the grabbing of pension pots earnings… it sounds just a step or two away from the state grabbing anything off of anyone whenever it feels like it.
What a great idea although I very much doubt if it could be applied retrospectively. Still, nice bit of “rage-baiting” for the traitors in the Home Office.
How far into our insitutions has Pakistan infiltrated?
I would not stop there. I would have a complete review of all malign webs that weave their way through Government and the civil service. Why are the Home Office so keen to easily wave through people for visas and why do the NHS bring in so many foreign doctors when British taught doctors are unable to find training positions? If it was right to investigate the web of freemasonry in the police (a red herring for most officers and forces), then why shouldn’t organisations such as the CSMN be pulled apart. Suspended before the last election, they are back up and running. We know how the concept of ukhuwwah has led to MPs demanding support for airports in foreign lands and doing work not connected to their constituency, we know councillors in London and elsewhere are standing for election to parliaments in other countries, so how do we know that this same doctrine of brotherhood isn’t affecting decisions within Government departments.
Good.
Hiw about about abolish the Civil Service – see if we notice?
I have sympathy with the idea.
In practice we do need some civil servants, but certainly not so many and also certainly with the emphasis on servants.
I realised very early into my police arrive that the bureaucracy exists for its own existence. So much of it is unnecessary and yet it never gets smaller, only bigger. Every drive I can remember to reduce bureaucratic burdens on officers was about moving the form filling away from officers to others (none of which ever made a difference because for every form that was passed elsewhere, another form was.created for officers to complete). I said many times that the emphasis should be in doing away with forms altogether, not making them someone else’s responsibility. All to deaf ears. I would lose count of how many times I had to write or type out a suspects name. It was ridiculous. It dawned on me that the system was so inefficient, so grindingly slow, so weighted against the law-a iding public, that it couldn’t be by accident or by incompetence. It *must* be deliberate. The ‘powers that be’ wanted the system to be this why. I don’t know exactly why they think that way, but I do know that the legal profession makes a ton of money from the system as bad as it is. It also seems, by a complete… Read more »
On this basis will a Reform government jail Starmer for this latest debacle involving the “British citizen” “welcomed home” from an Egyptian jail ?
No of course they won’t, this is just words which will be rolled back the instant Farage gets into power.