Taking Out The Trash

What information is held by the police on The Consulting Association?

On a whim I put in a Freedom of Information request into West Mercia police as it covered the area where The Consulting Association was based.

I wanted to know if it had any information on TCA and/or on Ian Kerr who ran it on behalf of the construction industry as a secret vetting service. Partly this was sparked because the Economic League used to have good contacts with Special Branch as part of its modus operandi.

I wasn't massively hopeful about getting much of a response as I can think of at least two exemptions it might fall foul of (personal information and law enforcement).

And that assumes there was any link.

So today's letter from West Mercia wasn't too surprising but perhaps there is a nugget of interest if you keep reading.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: RFI 2194/1

Firstly, the information I asked for on Ian Kerr was refused:

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.  West Mercia Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in s1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 40(5): personal information

Any information that relates to an individual, or from which an individual could be identified, constitutes personal data and to release information that constitutes personal data into the public domain contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.

The information that you have requested pertains to that of a third party and to confirm or deny that we hold information in relation to yourselves or a third party under the Freedom of Information legislation would in itself place such information into the public domain and would be in breach of the Data Protection principles, it is therefore exempt from disclosure, the exemption that applies to this type of information is Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This action cannot be taken as confirmation or denial that West Mercia holds the information you have asked for.

I also asked about any information the force holds with regards to The Consulting Association. This was the response:

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.  West Mercia Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in s1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information relating to Security Services

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 30(3) Criminal Investigations

Section 31(3) Law enforcement

Section 38(2) Health and Safety

Section 40(5) Personal Information

If West Mercia Police states that no information is held for one request about an individual or group but then exempts for another, requestors will obviously be able to deduce with absolute accuracy what subjects or group’s police have an interest in.  Similarly we never release details of who we may consult with in relation to any police investigation as this would identify particular areas of interest or the purpose of the investigation and the type of people that may or may not be concerned.  This would be highly likely to undermine National security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations as it would enable targeted individuals or groups to become aware of police interest.  This would help subjects avoid detection; inhibit the prevention and detection of crime and place the advantage with the offenders.

Please be advised that any information released as a result of a Freedom of Information request, in effect, is being released into the public domain. Therefore, it could subsequently be published or would have to be made available to any member of the public if it were requested

And I asked about any information Special Branch might hold and was told to refer to the answers above.

Am I reading too much in to those exemptions quoted in the refusal to release information on The Consulting Association?

Update: The Met has just sent me the same refusal notice, same reasons.

Blacklisting round-up

It's a legal matter baby

In what some described as chaotic scenes, today saw the latest stage in the employment tribunal process for those bringing unfair dismissal claims because of blacklisting.

There are about 80 separate actions and so the tribunal service has lumped them all together. It held a case management discussion in Manchester. The aim was to work out what information was still needed by all parties and agree the next step.

To be fair to the service, it is an unusual situation and it appears that the claimants are being every opportunity to put their cases.

A few cases will be held early next year around the country but it's going to be well into 2010 before we see the bulk of these dealt with and these will all be heard in Manchester. If you run a hotel in the city I'd start putting together a special blacklisting rate.

The meeting was so packed with barristers and solicitors it could have been the Law Society's AGM. Today must have cost the various construction companies tens of thousands in legal fees, and the meter is still running. This is likely to prove a strong incentive for companies not to go the distance. (Indeed one case has, apparently, already been settled out of court). Claimants want to air their greivances but some cases will be ruled out of time. So there is a big question mark over how many will finally see the inside of a court room.

The waiting game

Tribune has a comment piece from Labour MP Dave Anderson on the blacklisting issue which says (among other things):

Any party that has aspires to be progressive should not need to argue about outlawing this type of discrimination and using tough new laws to do so. Ministers should work with the unions and Keith Ewing, author of the UCATT report, to put in place the real protection that many workers desperately need.

I've been checking Hansard daily and pestering Matt at the BIS press office weekly to see when the new regulations outlawing blacklisting are going to get published. Still nothing. I can't imagine they'd be sneaked out, could they?

Pointing the finger

Over at Northern Voices they've picked up on a particular aspect of the blacklisting story which I included in my Saturday piece for the Guardian. Interesting to see how this is taken up.

Blacklisting - it was for health and safety reasons

Update: Saturday November 21

The Guardian runs my feature today updating the various aspects of the blacklisting story; from the court cases to the pending legislation and the continued drip of information that the files are releasing.

Seventeen months after Guardian Work exposed blacklisting in the construction industry, new laws outlawing the practice are set to come into force, and next week 23 of its alleged victims will start their court cases.

But for electricians such as Colin Trousdale it doesn't mean the scandal is over....

Read on

Northern Voices follows-up today's story and Panopticon has a considered take on the latest developments. I'm also intrigued by its suggestion here of a particular project in this area.

****

Yesterday building firm Skanska, one of those which subscribed to a secret intelligence-gathering company, today revealed the results of its internal investigation into the matter.

People Management Magazine Online reports that:

Building firm Skanska used an illegal blacklist of construction workers to vet employees for a history of violence and drug or alcohol abuse, an internal investigation has revealed.

Harvey Francis, executive vice-president for HR, told PM that it had subscribed to the list, which contained confidential details of 3,213 construction workers, “to ensure the safety of people working on our sites” – not to blacklist people on the grounds of trade union membership as reported in the press.

One person a week dies on a construction site in the UK so it is a laudable aim to put health and safety front and centre. However, many of the blacklisted construction workers I have spoken to (and whose files I have seen) have ended up on the system because they raised health and safety issues. A campaign group representing families bereaved because of deaths in the construction industry has spoken out specifically about this.

The report says that the Skanska investigation has led to:

"all white-collar staff were given training sessions on a new company code of conduct, which included guidance on employee referencing. A new position of data protection officer was created, and all of the 80-strong HR team were retrained on a new data protection policy – with yearly refresher courses planned."

It's pretty clear from what Francis says that there was a system-wide failure in the HR department but, the report says, no-one has been sacked. So in one case we have mistakes that have been proved and no-one gets the chop. On the other hand, false or irrelevant allegations are made and construction workers industry-wide are sacked. Somehow it does not seem that people are being treated equally.

The human relations departments in construction firms have been pretty succesful in avoiding the spotlight in this scandal. It is to Francis's and Skanksa's credit that they have been upfront about their investigation.

Concerns about how the HR industry has acted have been raised - it would be useful to know what steps other companies have taken to overhaul their HR departments in the manner Skanska has.

End of the Line

This coming Tuesday (November 24) environmental group ecolerne is showing End of the Line.

Released this summer, this documentary is a powerful indictment of modern fishing practices and has proved a global hit. It is timely considering reports today that skate could be the first fish driven to extinction through commercial fishing.

The screening will be followed by a discussion led by Bernard Purrier from Chippenham’s Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.

The film starts at 8pm and takes place in the function room of the Fox & Hounds pub in Colerne. It's free (donations welcome) and open to all.

Ideas above your station

Update Nov 20: Roger Helmer has blogged about the conference though I haven't seen any organiser answer the specific criticisms laid out below by various commentators.

Update Nov 18: Left Foot Forward has also now blogged  about this conference picking up on some different points as has Sunny Hundal over at Liberal Conspiracy. Over at the Political Scrapbook there is some background on conference speaker Fred Singer who has form for fronting for vested interests - in his case the tobacco industry. A glance at organiser Roger Helmer's blog find this post supporting the tobacco industry in the face of restrictions proposed by the World Health Organisation.

****

I got an invite from Roger Helmer MEP to attend a conference tomorrow (November 18) in Brussels called Have Humans Changed the Climate - facts and consequences.

Roger is a long-standing critic of anything which supports the idea that humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change. He has even used EU funding to put out a DVD promoting these views. I assume this conference was similarly EU-funded.

Well, he's consistent and open about his views and, generously, you could argue he's merely providing a platform for a debate rather than imposing his own ideas.

I was more interested in the last two speakers at tomorrow's conference: a couple of shills who will look at the media and climate change.

First up is Dr Benny Peiser from Liverpool John Moores University on Media Bias, Climate Alarmism and the Rise of the New Media.

Dr Peiser has bounced around a few topics, including near-Earth asteroids, but since climate change denial pays so well keeps his profile high has proved so stimulating he has written extensively on the issue. The fact he has no expertise in this area is no bar to his standing, obviously. Since he has no media expertise it seems he is doubly unqualified to give any presentation.

But that's just me.

(Incidentally, guess which School Benny is in at John Moores. Geology? Chemistry? Physics? Try, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences).

Then there is the charmless James Delingpole - a Telegraph columnist who thinks it is awfully dangerous to write sarcastic columns about the usual litany of right-wing bogeymen such as the socialist EU superstate (yawn).

Delingpole twittered as he was on his way to the conference: "Free champagne on train; free deluxe hotel room; basement swimming pool; free porn probably. Thank you, Eurotaxpayer."

Humourless lefty that I am I just can't shake the impression he's a pampered hypocrite rather than a cutting-edge commentator.

Strangely, on the speaker programme I was sent he's listed as Dr James Delingpole. Yet I can find no indication anywhere that he has earnt such a title and, if so, whether it was for sciences. It could not possibly be that the title was added to make him look more credible than he actually is?

At least he has one thing over Benny and that is works in the area he is talking about. But then Benny has got a doctorate, even if it was in social anthropology. Well, you pays your money - you takes your choice.

A sinister conspiracy

This morning it was the usual struggle to write a cheque because of the design of the chequebook; then I partially sliced my hand because the peeler was similarly ill-equipped.

For the left-handed - life is just that little bit more difficult. I mean, President Obama has got some mighty forces ranged against him and he's also cackhanded. (Do you reckon they try and not stage photoshoots where he has to sign anything?)

Then I read this review of Juliet Nicolson's new book about life after World War One and realised how institutional this prejudice is. Nicolson talks about the compensation offered to injured veterans.

"The loss of a full right arm from the shoulder downwards was worth sixteen shillings a week. Fourteen shillings were awarded if the arm was missing from below the shoulder but above the elbow, and then the rate dropped to eleven shillings and sixpence for limbs missing from below the elbow." The left arm merited a shilling less all round.

At least reporters' notebooks are designed to be operated by people both sinister and dexterous.

Politics and paranoia book review

Tribune magazine has just published my review of Politics and Paranoia by Lobster magazine editor Robin Ramsay. It was written before I'd had a chance to look at Christopher Andrew's history of MI5. This book could almost be read as companion piece to that official history.

(Incidentally, Lobster's first online only edition comes out next month and has an extensive article by me on the construction industry blacklisting scandal.)

Just because you're paranoid. . .

The Labour Party, whether in government or opposition, seems to have a pathological inability to deal with the intelligence services.

Either this is through fear about being bitten or a sense that the chaps really do know best and Labour should stick to stuff like the NHS.

Politics and Paranoia is a collection of talks that Robin Ramsay, editor of the parapolitical magazine Lobster, has given around the country for the last 20 years.

Ramsay abides by the First Law of American politics after Watergate: “No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is really doing is worse than you could possibly imagine.”

In an engaging and lucid style these talks cover topics such as the rise of New Labour, the complex network of plots that targeted Wilson and Heath, the British American Project for the Successor Generation, mind control research, the War on Terror and several furious dissections of Labour’s subservience to the City.

You do get a fair amount of repetition as he cuts and pastes key sections and quotes for reuse. Ramsay is frank about what he does and does not know (by implication, we know even less) and he’s not edited the talks where he’s got things wrong, but acknowledged it in a footnote.

Of course any talk about conspiracy theories immediately gets ‘ordinary’ people rolling their eyes. Green inkers who think Roswell aliens on the grassy knoll assassinated Kennedy’s body double to protect the Queen’s cocaine empire.

Yet as Ramsay points out: “…even ignoring all the evidence of large scale political conspiracies, and organisations such as intelligence services which are conspiracies pure and simple, it is blindingly obvious, is it not, that political parties, for example, are intrinsically conspiratorial. Routine internal party politics is a network of interlocking cabals plotting to get their hands on this group, committee, caucus meeting, council, party, pressure group.”

Reading over some of these talks, where Spycatcher was still fresh and Colin Wallace had only just been released from prison, you realise there is an immense institutional will to forget.

A man who has evidence of dirty tricks by the intelligence services against Labour and Liberal politicians gets framed for manslaughter. And nothing happens.

Ramsay believes that on too many occasions the Labour Party did not show leadership that would have kept up the media pressure.

Thatcher taunts Kinnock after one of his staff spoke to Peter Wright’s lawyers and Kinnock dives for cover rather than ask the obvious question about how she knew. Once in power MI5 and MI6 continue to act with impunity.

Can you imagine a Labour MP making a maiden speech like Ken Livingstone’s where he aired the allegations of Wallace and Fred Holroyd and accused the sainted Airey Neave of being involved in dirty tricks?

In several of Ramsay’s talks he discusses the destabilising of New Zealand in the 1980s as it pursued policies not sanctioned by the US.

If Labour thinks that acquiescence to the secret state during its time in power will protect it in the future then this book shows that to be a naive at best.

ENDS

Now RMT members found on blacklist files

Tribune magazine has posted up a news story from me about how RMT members have found they have blacklisting files. So far it was thought just construction workers in Ucatt and Unite were affected.

Members of a third trade union have been revealed as being victims of the infamous construction industry blacklist.

In February, officials of the Information Commissioner’s Office raided the Consulting Association in Droitwich. They discovered secret files on some 3,200 workers in the construction industry which had been maintained on behalf of building firms for vetting purposes.

Of the 238 files released so far, most have been on members of the UCATT and Unite unions – but now it turns out that some RMT members were blacklisted as well.

You can read the rest here.

I interverviewed Chomsky; but I think I got away with it

My first reaction on opening up the comment pages in the Guardian today was to think: "Oh good; look forward to reading that."

Then I thought: "Oh no; you're going to get creamed."

The Guardian carries an interview with noted linguist, political activist and media theorist Noam Chomsky who was giving a talk in London this week (a sell out, as always).

I think this is the first time the paper has carried an interview with Chomsky since a disasterous encounter back in 2005 which led to them having to apologise for misrepresenting his views.

Since then barely a day goes by without Medialens, the group which monitors bias in the liberal media, bringing this up as an example of how the Guardian et al are in league with the Illuminati. (Before they write in; that sentence was written in a style known as 'irony' or 'taking the piss' so don't bother factually analysing it.)

So I expected Seamus Milne's thoughtful piece to attract a blizzard of micro-anaylsis. Afterall, when George Monbiot called Blair a war criminal he got 'lensed' because he wasn't John Pilger and only Pilger gets to say that.

But, 12 hours after publication, all is quiet.

Surely Milne is merely adding another bar to our gilded cage by helping with the pretence that the Guardian carries dissenting opinion? (I note the Chomsky interview isn't puffed on the guardian's home page: censored again!)

Or maybe Chomsky's visit was a good chance to carry an interview with a man who is of interest to hundreds of thousands of people and who offers a different perspective on international affairs.

No, that is far too simplistic and rational an explanation.

What counts as easily available?

About a month ago I wrote on a government database aimed at naming and shaming those companies which refused to pay out industrial tribunal claims.

Unfortunately you had to know the name of either party involved to carry out a search and each seach costs you £8 and if you wanted bulk access (as credit reference agencies do) you would have to pay even more and there were restrictions on how the data could be used and, and, and.... basically this was a useless effort at naming and shaming.

So I put a Freedom of Information request in to the Ministry if Justice asking for a copy of the database.

Today I got a response (over the 20 working day limit but we'll let that pass).

My request was refused under section 21 which says that you don't have to give out the info if it is already easily accessible. Interestingly, Section 21 doesn't have a public interest defence.

I've asked for a review of their refusal arguing that the information isn't freely accessible.

There were, at the last count, 161 companies on the database. With a fee of £8 a search it would cost me £1,288 to discover all their details. This is more than the MoJ could reasonably be asked to spend complying with a FOI request.

The Information Commissioner has already ruled that, while charging for access does not in itself mean information is inaccessible, excessive fees do constitute a barrier. See this ruling which has gone to appeal and in particular paragraph 35 (thank you FOI News for this).

I would argue that exactly the same situation applies here where it would cost me an excessive amount to obtain the information requested and more than guidelines say the MoJ should spend complying with FOI requests.

Further, the database can only be search once you have a name of either party involved. Therefore access is only open to those with prior information and obtaining that would likely require extra cost. The average user cannot freely access this database, even if it was free, because they would have no information to input to start the search.

The database itself is so constructed to be inaccessible unless you can pay a large sum of money and have a name as a starting point. This set up and the refusal to release the information, I would suggest, frustrates a primary reason for why the database was established in the first place.

Well, we'll see how my appeal fares, but it is annoying at a very basic level that government data, collected and maintained on our behalf, isn't made more easily available. Anyhow I thought that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.

It would take five minutes to copy that database and send me a spreadsheet and that would sort it out. Or am I being naive?