Blacklisting Update: You couldn't make it up

Abstract

police in relation to this complaint continually raises concerns about the quality of their investigation , it is interesting to note that they confirm that they have identified a potential “flow of information between Special Branch and the construction industry”. A number of blacklist activists have been refused copies of their own personal police files made under Subject Access Requests on the basis that providing the documents may jeopardise ongoing criminal investigations. It is without doubt that the police and security services are spying on trade unionists fighting for justice on the issue of blacklisting. They have colluded with big business to deliberately target trade unionism over decades. The refusal to provide any information whatsoever smacks of an establishment cover-up. Blacklisting is no longer an industrial relations issue: it is a human rights conspiracy. Protestors assaulted by construction company security Part of the work of the BSG is our campaign to ensure that the role of the multinational construction giants who used the Consulting Association’s services is not forgotten. To further our demands for justice we regularly organise public demonstrations and protests at the offices and major projects of these giant corporations. On 15 October a group of 20 BSG activists attended headquarters of Laing O’Rourke in Dartford where we attempted to distribute leaflets about the role of the construction giant in the Consulting Association blacklisting conspiracy. The photograph reproduced here shows how Laing O’Rourke chose to respond to this peaceful protest. Time for a public inquiry? The BSG is not alone in being concerned by the web of relationships that appears to have facilitated the movement of staff and speakers between major multinationals, the Consulting Association blacklisting operation, independent ‘employment vetting’ services, and the UK’s secret services. It has been confirmed in a Select Committee investigation that the undercover police unit known as the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (‘NETCU’) attended and gave Powerpoint presentations to meetings of the Consulting Association blacklisting organisation. In their rather blunt response the metropolitan police say that the relevant guidance on this issue is simply ‘if asked: is it true that NETCU shared information with the Consulting Association? We do not discuss matters of intelligence’ At least one former NETCU officer now works for an ‘employment vetting’ service . Another senior officer from the unit now The UK’s secret political police are spying on me. I know this because they refuse to provide a copy of my file, even after making appropriate requests by the proper procedure. My ‘crime’ is being a trade unionist INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 20 Volume 21 Issue 4 2014 T he metropolitan police have responded to a request for information about continuing surveillance of workers’ rights activists with the unhelpful posturing that they will ‘neither confirm nor deny’ whether the Blacklist Support Group (‘BSG’) is under surveillance by undercover police units. The statement came in a response to a Freedom of Information request on 9 October 2014 and was sent to investigative journalist Phil Chamberlain. The police chose to justify their stance by quoting Section 24(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that it was in the ‘public interest’ for them to refuse to ‘confirm or deny in order to safeguard national security ’. But the Act allows them to confirm or deny for public interest reasons. Failing to release information under this provision seems a difficult decision to justify given the huge public interest surrounding the exposure of undercover police surveillance of activists in the UK that has emerged over the past few years. As IUR readers may be aware, we now know that the UK secret State operated an extraordinary web of intrusive surveillance of left and environmental activists, over many years, by officers who insinuated themselves deep into the private and family lives of activists. Posing as activists, these officers formed relationships and fathered children with the activists whom they were secretly monitoring. The destructive impact of this surveillance upon the lives of many peaceful activists, and their children, is slowly emerging, although the secret State appears to be in complete denial about its responsibility for this awful situation. The ‘neither confirm nor deny’ defence which was also adopted by...