The Death of George Blake by Brian Bamford

GEORGE Blake, a notorious British double agent who betrayed Cold War secrets and Western spies to the Soviet Union in the 1950s and, after being caught, staged a spectacular escape to live out his life as a K.G.B. colonel in Moscow, has died. He was 98.

Like the Cambridge-educated moles Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, Mr. Blake became a dedicated Marxist, disillusioned with the West, and a high British intelligence officer while secretly working for the Soviets. His clandestine life had lasted less than a decade, but cost the lives of many agents and destroyed vital British and American operations in Europe.

Unlike the Cambridge clique, who defected when the authorities closed in, Mr. Blake was caught in 1961, tried secretly and sentenced to 42 years in prison. Five years later, with inside and outside help, he escaped from the Wormwood Scrubs prison in London and fled to Moscow. He left behind a wife, three children and an uproar over his getaway, the tatters of a case that encapsulated the intrigues of a perilous nuclear age, with flash points in Korea and Germany, where Blake served.

Settling into a new life in Moscow in 1966, Mr. Blake assumed the identity of Colonel Georgiy Ivanovich Bleyk and was awarded the Order of Lenin and given a pension and an apartment. He divorced his wife, remarried and had a son and grandson, helped train Soviet agents and in 2007, on his 85th birthday, received the Order of Friendship from President Putin. He wrote an autobiography, “No Other Choice” (1990), and a memoir, “Transparent Walls” (2006).

***********************************************

IN HIS AUTHORIZED HISTORY OF MI5 'The Defence of the Realm' Christopher Andrew wrote:

'To general astonishment, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, sentenced [George] Blake to forty-two years' imprisonment, the longest sentence ever imposed by a British court. Blake appeared stummed. Sir Dick White later said that he too had been shocked by the severity of the sentence. J.Edgar Hoover, by contrast, was delighted, telling the Washington SLO approvingly: "Anyway, the British have guts!" Macmillan, however, found the spy scandals of the early 1960s even more distastful than the furore which had surrounded his clearing of Philby in 1955. Instead of congadulating MI5 for its part in tracking down a series of Soviet spies, he blamed the Service for causing him public embarrassment. The Prime Minister complained in his diary after Blake's conviction that he public, already shocked by media reports, "do not know and cannot be told that he belonged to MI6, an organisation which does not theoretically exist. So I had rater a rough passage in the House of Commons..." Though the British press did not reveal that Blake was an SIS officer when repoting the verdict, the foreign press had no such inhibitions and the secret soon leaked out.'

This incident seems to capture the thankless job of spy-catching by MI5.

Later when Sir Roger Hollis had alerted Macmillan of the arrest of the spy John Vassal it was claimed that Hollis had told him 'I've got this fellow [Vassall], I've got him!' When Macmillan failed to show any enthusiasm for this MI5 success, Hollis allegedly remarked, 'You don't seem very pleased, Prime Minister.' Macmillan, by his own account, replied:

'No, I'm not pleased. When my gamekeeper shoots a fox, he doesn't go and hang it up outside the Master of the Foxhounds' drawing room; he buries it out of sight. But you just can't shoot a spy as you did in the war. You have to try him... better to discover him, and then control him, but never catch him... There will be a terrible row in the press, there will be a debate in the House of Commons and the government will probably fall. Why the devil did you catch him?'

This is the curious paradox presented by Sir Roger Hollis the spy-catcher to the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s, it was not unlike that described in the essay 'Shooting an Elephant' by George Orwell: 'The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant, like a mad dog, if the owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and gave me sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.'

Appearances are often more important than crude political considerations, and that's why cases like that of George Blake are so significant in so far as they often serve to ridicule and undermine political authority.

********************************************************

FBI tipped off MI5 about Abedi in January

THE FBI warned UK security chiefs back in January that Salman Abedi was planning an attack in Britain according to reports.

This newly released information puts pressure on the British intelligence community to provide answers as to why they didn’t feel Abedi was a significant threat, and if the attack could have been prevented.

The source told The Mail on Sunday: ‘In early 2017 the FBI told MI5 that Abedi belonged to a North African terror gang based in Manchester, which was looking for a political target in this country.'

The information came from the interception of his communications by US federal agents, who had been investigating Abedi since the middle of 2016, and from information unearthed in Libya, where his family was linked to terrorist groups.

‘Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure.

‘But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets.’

Last night, The Mail on Sunday put the claim to the FBI but a bureau spokesman declined to comment, while UK security sources did not confirm the specific claim about the tip-off.

Editor: A report by Daily Mail columnist, Peter Oborne, says: "Often with the connivance of MI6, during the early years of the Syrian war, hundreds of British citizens were allowed to travel abroad to join Jihadist organizations." Read More:

How is it that the police can destroy evidence?

Ricky Tomlinson holding a copy of Northern Voices at a Conference of the FBU

YESTERDAY, Brian Reade wrote a piece in the Daily Mirror about Ricky Tomlinson's claim that Richard Whiteley was a spy for MI5.  We produce an excerp below:
'Not convinced? Neither is veteran Shrewsbury 24 researcher, Eileen Turnbull, who believes Tomlinson may have been duped: “I don’t know why Ricky is saying this,” she said.
Well, having recently spoken at length with Ricky, I think I know why. The 77-year-old realises he hasn’t got too many fighting years left, and the lack of a pardon for him and his fellow strikers in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were framed, could be driving him to distraction.
In 1973, Ricky was jailed for two years at Shrewsbury Crown Court, and 23 others convicted, after being found guilty of arcane public order offences during a national building strike against poor pay and Victorian working conditions.
For 44 years, campaigners have insisted the convictions were instigated by Ted Heath’s Tory Government who feared the rise of trade union power.
They have documents suggesting police destroyed witness statements and framed testimony to convict the activists, and that crucial papers are being withheld because they are too damaging and embarrassing to reveal.'
The Royle Family starhad said:
'... had he know of his alleged involvement in the plot when he appeared on Countdown he would have throttled him.'
It looks like Ricky is keen to get this issue of the Shrewsbury Pickets out into the public domain. 

Ricky Tomlinson outs Richard Whiteley as MI5 Spy

RICKY Tomlinson, the actor star of The Royle Family reckons Richard Whiteley, the late TV Countdown presenter was working for the security services. 
Ricky made the claim about Whiteley during an interview marking the opening of a Wetherspoons pub in Chester.
Mr. Tomlinson, was a plasterer before taking up a career in comedy, and he helped to organise the controversial national building workers’ strike in during the 70’s at the same pub.
In 1973, he was sentenced to two years in prison after having been found guilty of 'conspiracy to intimidate' as one of the so-called Shrewsbury Two with Des Warren
The actor and other campaigners have long believed that he was the victim of an establishment set-up.
The Labour MP and a former Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle is now calling on the Government to own up over the affair, which has remained shrouded in secrecy for 35 years.
Mr Kilfoyle spoke out after the Cabinet Office refused to release its secret files on the case, which include a report to the then Prime Minister Edward Heath, because of the need to 'protect the security services'.
Today the Daily Express reports:  'Files released earlier this year show the then head of MI5, Sir Michael Hanley, intervened personally to block Ricky’s release, claiming that he was involved in a communist plot to destabilise Britain.'
Ricky and his friend Dezzie Warren were dubbed the 'Shrewsbury Two' after being jailed for organising a picket in the town in 1972. The pair, who both spent much of their sentences in solitary confinement, staged a 22-day hunger strike in a bid to be declared political prisoners. Mr Kilfoyle said he would now launch an appeal to get the information released.

Blacklist Current Agenda

1. Blacklisting, Bullying & Blowing the Whistle 

Blacklist Support Group are co-hosting a major employment rights conference in September at the University of Greenwich.

Bringing together activists & academics, politicians, unions and lawyers to expose the hidden underbelly of the modern workplace. Confirmed contributors include: John McDonnell, Michelle Stanistreet, Gail Cartmail, John Hendy, Roger McKenzie, Art Against Blacklisting - many more speakers to be announced.

Come along, spread the word and be part of setting the political agenda on workers rights (plus on Friday evening there will be a Blacklisting Victory party with live music & DJs)

http://www.gre.ac.uk/business/services/events/events/current/BlacklistingBullyingBlowingtheWhistle




2. When Len McCluskey said that that MI5 could be covertly undermining the Corbyn leadership, he was condemned as a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps his critics should take a look at the evidence of legal democratic campaigns being infiltrated by undercover police and the security services. 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/undercover-with-paul-lewis-and-rob-evans/2015/mar/13/covert-police-unit-spied-on-trade-union-members-whistleblower-reveals

http://campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2016/07/19/no-hiding-place-spycops-scotland/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/25/len-mccluskey-adds-context-to-his-comments-on-mi5?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews

3. Video shown at UNITE Policy Conference in Brighton 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqxaoXansLY

Bill Harvey, Jessica Sparrowhawk, Sandy MacPherson, Bridgett & Darrel Crapper represent

4. Solidarity

Solidarity - Wood Street Cleaners 

Wood Street cleaners have WON the London Living Wage but have voted unanimously to stay on indefinite strike until their sacked union reps are reinstated. 

Day 50 on strike - protest - Time for our entire movement to mobilise in support of this heroic dispute.

5pm Wednesday 27th July 

https://www.facebook.com/events/1559648911010367/

Solidarity with the striking Offshore workers 

https://uniteoffshore2015.org/%E2%80%A6/support-unite-rmt-members-%E2%80%A6/

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/9249/offshore-protestors-gather-at-shell-depots-to-vent-anger-at-strike-scab-workforce-plans/

http://www.thenational.scot/news/staff-on-shell-installations-stage-overtime-ban-over-pay-changes.20369

Solidarity with the Durham TAs

http://m.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14609841.Overwhelming_support_for_Durham_teaching_assistants_at_The_Big_Meeting/?ref=fbshr

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-teaching-assistants-demand-action-11645852

Solidarity with Hazards conference - this weekend

http://www.hazardscampaign.org.uk/?cat=7

5. Davey Hopper R.I.P.

Blacklist Support Group wish to send condolences to the famioy and friends of Davy Hopper, Durham NUM. Funeral this Friday. 

http://www.durhamminers.org/funeral_announcement_dave_hopper

6. The short film 'Apologies' by Lucy Parker about the blacklisting scandal is showing as part of an exhibition from Tuesday this week until 28th August

Jerwood Space, 171 Union Street, Bankside, London, SE1 0LN. 

7. Corbyn keeps pushing the case for blacklisted workers at Durham & Tolpuddle 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjpAdkKRcIY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NqB5H5cP4

Blacklist Support Group

book: http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCa8yQmZ70

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

A long-running Critque of 'Smile for the Camera'

by Les May 

I have been critical of the book 'Smile for the Camera' by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker since it was published in April 2014 which is why two weeks Iater, on 28 April 2014, I posted a critical review on Amazon under the pseudonym Rufus with the title 'A lightweight potboiler'.  


http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R3A7XZP51EW0A6/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1849548757  

But I have never doubted that Cyril Smith did indecently assault a number of young men at Cambridge House hostel in the early to mid 1960s.  An account of this was placed in the public domain in a detailed article written by the co-editors David Bartlett and John Walker in the May 1979 issue of Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP).  I read this at the time and since I began to research the book John Walker has sent me copies of the affidavits by some of these young men and I have been sent a statement by a man who was subjected to a fake medical by Smith, but not interviewed by RAP or by the police when Smith was investigated in 1969/70.  


Although the book purports to give a verbatim account of what Smith did to one young man who had taken a day off work in a chapter headed 'Silent Voices #1' there are some strange passages in this section.  For example on page 87 we read: 
'It was said that Leonardo da Vinci would gaze at the stains on walls and imagine vivid battles and landscapes. That day cheap exuberant motifs gave way to a swarm of angry locusts bringing a load of plague and pestilence.'   


Now this is supposed to be the recollections of a man who had his backside whacked by Smith for taking a day off work fifty years earlier. But it gets even stranger.   


At one point we read: 
'Above his heavy breathing I could smell his rancid body odour. It was like cabbage boiled in vinegar. As his heavy breathing slowed, a continuous low sound rose in his chest like a purr of contentment. He was humming quietly to himself. Then he reached for a wet sponge by the sink and began to stroke my bottom, rough hands sliding over a minefield of welts. I gritted my teeth as the burning, stinging sensation intensified. Ever once in a while he'd apply the sponge generously, letting cold water trickle down the back of my legs.'   


As can be seen from the accounts in the appendix (which were taken in their entirety from RAP's 1979 article) Smith's punishment of a resident for taking a day off work and Smith's use of a sponge after punishing a resident for stealing money refer to two different individuals.  I may be drawing the wrong conclusion here, but to my mind this throws considerable doubt upon what is in the book being an entirely accurate record of any interview conducted by the authors.  It may just be coincidence that the account in the book and the two accounts which appeared in RAP are so similar.  But it would be quite remarkable if other similarities turn up.   


I have repeatedly asked Mr Danczuk to tell me how many men he interviewed who claim to have been assaulted by Smith after the closure of Cambridge House.  Re-reading what I have written above I'm beginning to wonder if I should not also have pressed him to tell me how many men he interviewed who claim to have been assaulted at Cambridge House.   


So if the evidence that Smith did indecently assault young men at Cambridge House is so strong, why was he never prosecuted?


We now know Lancashire Police investigated Smith's activities at Cambridge House in 1969 and that in March 1970 an 80 page file of evidence was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) containing complaints from eight young men about indecent assaults by him. The Greater Manchester Police update of this information does not detail any other group of complainants. But similar stories about 'police files' appear in the book on pages 45, 47 and 51, leaving the impression that they refer to separate complaints, which they don't.   


The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was established following the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and started operating from 1 October 1986.  Prior to this prosecutions were handled by the police.  Difficult decisions/ cases were referred to DPP’s Office. 


The fact that the police did not immediately prosecute Smith suggests that they thought it a 'difficult' case which needed to be submitted to the DPP.  This was done on 8 March and returned on 19 March 1970.  According to the 1979 RAP article it was 'marked for no further action on the basis of insufficient evidence'.  However, a statement from the CPS dated 27 November 2012 says that a one page letter was sent to the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary.   


The full letter read:   
'I have considered your file and I observe that eight young men, whose ages range from nineteen to twenty-four years, allege that between 1961 and 1966 Smith subjected them to various forms of indecency and I also observe that Smith denies their allegations. Any charges of indecent assault founded on these allegations, as well as being somewhat stale, would be, in my view, completely without corroboration. Further, the characters of some of these young men would be likely to render their evidence suspect.  
'In the circumstances, I do not consider that if proceedings for indecent assault were to be taken against Smith, there would be a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I do not, therefore, advise his prosecution.'   


If one is so minded it is possible to construct any number of 'conspiracy theories' around the fact that Smith was not prosecuted, including the idea that he was being protected by a gang of powerful paedophiles.  But the 'Law and Lawyers' website published a clarification on 30 November 2012, i.e. about two weeks after Simon Danczuk had 'rediscovered' the 1970 allegations against Smith and some eighteen months before 'Smile for the Camera' was published. 


This reads as follows:  
'The reasons given by Skelhorn for advising against prosecution are of some legal interest.  The reasons were in a letter from Skelhorn to the Chief Constable of Lancashire (19th March 1970).  Skelhorn stated that the allegations were “without corroboration".'  “Corroboration" was, at the time, a very significant element in the law of evidence applicable to criminal cases.  A trial judge was required to warn juries of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in sexual cases.   The only exception to this was a sexual case where the identity of the alleged assailant was in issue but not the commission of the offence itself - R v Chance [1988] 3 All ER 225, CA. 
What was referred to as a FULL warning had to be given and failure to do so could render a conviction unsafe.  The jury had to be told:
1. That it was dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the witness but that if they (the jury) were satisfied of the truth of such evidence they might nevertheless convict;
2. The technical meaning of corroboration had to be explained;
3.  The jury had to be told which evidence was (and which was not) capable of amounting in law to corroboration;
4.  It also had to be explained to the jury that, as the tribunal of fact, they had to decide whether the available evidence did in fact constitute corroboration.   
'Sir Norman Skelhorn's opinion would, of course, have been based on the law as it stood in 1970 and the need for formal corroboration of the complainant's evidence amounted to a formidable hurdle in many cases of this type.'   


My understanding is that the fact that there were multiple complainants did not in itself amount to 'corroboration'.  From a lay perspective I find this contrary to common sense.  
Had Smith been taken before the courts in the 1990s when the complaints were looked at on two further occasions he would have had to be tried under the law which existed at the time the offences were committed and the need for 'corroboration' would still have amounted to what 'Law and Lawyers website' calls 'a formidable hurdle'.  The 1979 RAP article might also have been considered to be prejudicial to a fair trial. 
 
The requirement for an obligatory warning to be given was removed in 1994 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.  Hence if Smith had committed the offences after that date, not fifty years ago, he would certainly have been prosecuted.  


Danczuk and Baker have eight entries in the index under the title 'Smith helped by establishment cover up' spread over some twenty pages of the book.  Careful reading of the book shows that this narrative is just something conjured up out of the authors' imagination, and sustained by seeking and then interpreting evidence to support this claim.  The account on pages 221-222 (of Smile for the Camera) of the police failing to detain him in Northamptonshire has already been discredited by the police themselves, and the claims about Elm Street Guest House are beginning to look very doubtful.   


Just as with the repetition of the 'police files' on Smith there is repetition of how these were taken by the security services.  On page 84 (Smile for the Camera) we read:  
'Police files documenting the many accusations of child abuse committed by Cyril were suddenly disappearing.  Tony Robinson, a Special Branch officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, confirmed that all files on Cyril were removed by MI5 officers from the safe at their police headquarters in Preston and taken to London.  It wasn't just the lid of the box which had been slammed shut on Cyril's dark secrets.  The box itself had no been shipped away to permanent obscurity.'  


Note here how Danczuk and Baker refer to 'files documenting the many accusations', when the Greater Manchester Police update does not mention any other group of complainants.  Clearly there was a single substantial file containing the allegations previously sent to the DPP.  
This story is repeated on page 143 as:   
'When Tony Robinson, a Special Branch officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, revealed in 2012 how police files on Cyril had been requested by MI5, he explained that he had known immediately why they'd wanted them.  MI5 had a unit that monitored MPs and reported to the Cabinet Office.  At the time of the Lib-Lab Pact Liberal MPs would have been checked out to determine whether they were suitable for high office.  “The fact that the security service wanted the file brought to my notice obviously indicated that he was about to be vetted,” said Robinson.'
Precisely!   So what's the mystery?  Why is this evidence of an 'establishment cover up'?  Removing the files to London and out of reach of seemingly garrulous policemen is a reasonable way of protecting the security of the state by ensuring that Smith could not be blackmailed by agents of a foreign power. 
 
My reference to 'blackmail by a foreign power' may seem a bit far fetched, but the 'Independent on Sunday' (IoS) of 22 March 2015 carried a story of an attempt by Boss, the apartheid era South African security service, to blackmail Smith about sexual abuse in the 1970s.  A contemporaneous article in the Sunday Telegraph of 14 March 1976 refers to a 'dossier' prepared by MI5 claiming that South African business interests had mounted an operation to discredit the Liberal Party of which Smith was then the party Whip.  This included information about false allegations against Smith being circulated anonymously in Rochdale and London. 


More recent claims that there is 'independent evidence' that MI5 were 'suppressing' information about Smith at that time turn out to be just a recycling of the claims by Danczuk and Baker.  The Lib-Lab pact did not come into being until March 1977, a year after the Sunday Telegraph article.  If Robinson's inference is correct MI5 did not hold the Lancashire Police file on Smith in 1976. 
For those who want to believe in 'establishment cover ups' no amount of contrary explanation will ever suffice. But we are entitled to ask about the evidence they present in support of their case.   The 'evidence' presented in 'Smile for the Camera' is of the flimsiest kind, being largely assertions by the authors, or second and third hand gossip, resulting in a book which is little more robust than a wall of tissue paper, the only solid foundation being the work of David Bartlett and John Walker in 1979 with respect to Smith's activities at Cambridge House.  


Truly 'a lightweight potboiler'! 


Appendix (from RAP, May 1979) : 
'RAP has traced 10 ex-residents and one who, though never having been at Cambridge House, made a statement to the police. 
Of the 10, three have nothing but praise for Cyril Smith.  The other 7 have all made allegations which fall into one or both categories:  
'BEATINGS They have described to us Smith’s role in providing discipline.  Two extracts from sworn statements given to us illustrate the procedure:   
'From a man now married with 4 children and living in Rochdale, describes how, while at the hostel and aged about 16 he took a day off work from the job Smith had arranged for him. His absence from the job was reported to the hostel and he was interviewed by Smith:  
'He gave me the choice between accepting his punishment and leaving the hostel. I said I would accept his punishment...He took me into the Quiet Room. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. When I had done that he hit me four or five times with his bare hands on my bare buttocks.' 
(2) From a man, single, living and working in Rochdale, then aged about 15, describes how after he had been reported for a minor offence: 
'Cyril Smith found out that I had taken some money. He asked me if I would accept his punishment or be dealt with by the authorities. I said I would accept his punishment. He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. He trapped my hands between his legs. He hit me many times with his bare hand and I pleaded with him to stop because he was hurting me. This took place at the hostel. Afterwards he came to my bedroom and wiped my buttocks with a wet sponge.' 
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/11/cps-statement-in-relation-to-cyril-smith.html

http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sir-cyril-smith-corroboration-of.html#more

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-humbug-of-simon-danczuk.html

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-wasting-police-time.html

http://www.tomgriffin.org/SunTel14Mar76FP.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact#1977

Crewe Conference of Trade Union Councils

Where Are The Workers?

THE Sunday Times in an editorial following the May 2015 elections declared:

'Trade unionism is a minority cause.  The days of an economy dominated by large manufacturing industries are long past.  The proportion of private sector employees who belong to a trade union is just 14%.' 

Last weekend's Crewe Conference dramatically displayed the gulf between private sector trade unionism, and  public sector unions like the PCS.  Some eight Motions were dedicated to the attacks on trade unions and about half referred to the PCS union.  Other Motions  expressed concern about the representation of the working class following the defeat of the Labour Party in the General Election.   

A Motion 7. from Cardiff noted 'attacks by local government on union branches' and the 'clear intention of (Francis) Maude and the Tories is to destroy PCS financially by withdrawing the check-off from government departments'.  From the building trade, a UCCAT delegate questioned this domination of the public sector when things were so bad on the building sites, and the anarcho-syndicalist trade unionist Dave Chapple from Bridgewater TUC, challenged the call in Motion 17. from Merseyside TUC that the TUC should 'wave affiliation fees from [the] PCS [union]'. 

Similarly the reference to the 'blacklisting and victimisation of union reps' in Motion 7. must strike people working in the British industrial wild west of the building sites as strange, when they have suffered for donkey's years from blacklisting on a massive scale.  To a former blue collar worker like myself; the delegate from UCATT; the thousands of workers in the British building trade; and even a postman like Dave Chapple, the Secretary of Bridgewater TUC who said that his delegates 'would be displeased if the PCS delegates had their affiliation fees waved'; the plight of the PCS would seem somewhat feather-bedded.


In Spain, in the famous anarchist trade union, the CNT, there were times when the land-labourers of Andalucia had their union dues waved because of the hardship they suffered through the irregular work pattern in the field with unpredictable harvests:  the anarcho-syndicalist industrial workers in the factories of Catalonia and Barcelona were more than willing to shoulder the costs of their Andalucian brothers and sisters. 

But, comparing the English PCS union today to the Spanish trade union confederation the CNT of the 1930s is like comparing a white-collar pygmy to an industrial giant: it just doesn't bear comparison on any scale of reference. 
In 1966, I led a raid with group of Manchester anarchists on my local dole office in Rochdale to obtained a my labour exchange file.  When we examined my file compiled by Labour Exchange staff (the kind of people who are now members of the PCS) we found that it contained a section marked 'Derog' in this derogatory dossier, as part of my labour exchange record since I was involved in the national apprentice strike in 1960, there was a stream of derogatory references entered by those law abiding employees at the Rochdale Labour Exchange who had interviewed me over the years after I'd been sacked after the apprentice strike up to 1966 when we purloined my dole documents. 

It's nice to know that the people in the Labour Exchanges of the 1960s, and would now be members of the PCS union working in Job Centres, were routinely black-balling me back then and for all I know may still be blacklisting claimants now.  Yet, these people in the PCS, who operated as willing blacklisters of working people in the 1960s, are now asking me and my Trade Union Council for support because the Government, to which they have been for years the loyal  servants of the State is getting at them. 
I have a heart, but isn't this kind of cant and humbug asking rather too much of me under the circumstances?

Call for Public Inquiry into Police Spies

BLACKLIST campaigners have called for the Public Inquiry into undercover police spying on the the Lawrence family to be given a wide enough remit to investigate police collusion with blacklisting. Despite documentary evidence proving beyond doubt that undercover police officers were linked to blacklisting there was no mention of this in the statement made by Theresa May to MPs. 
 

On the very same day that the Home Secretary announced a public inquiry into the activity of Special Demonstration Squad officers spying on the Lawrence family, Operation Herne has published its 2nd report into the actions of undercover police officers. Blacklist victims condemned as a whitewash the non-findings of the police report into police collusion in the blacklist conspiracy, which describes police discussions with blacklisting organisations as driven by 'civic duty'.

Blacklist Support Group statement: 

'The Operation Herne report demonstrates exactly why victims of undercover police surveillance have no faith in the police investigating themselves. There is already irrefutable evidence in the public domain that officers from undercover police units actually attended secret Consulting Association blacklist meetings, yet this is not even mentioned by Herne. Undercover Special Demonstration Squad officers are known to have posed as construction workers and infiltrated picket lines and union meetings. Information on some blacklist files could only have come from the police or the security services. In relation to police collusion in blacklisting, the Operation Herne 2nd Report is a complete whitewash.

 

'Only a fully independent public inquiry into the full extent of police links with corporate spying will expose the undemocratic shady practices. Any public inquiry should not be narrowly focused on the Lawrence case but should encompass the sexual relationships with female activists, Hillsborough, environmental and anti-racist campaigners, blacklisting and police collusion with big business.

 

'There are secret political police in the UK - they are called Special Branch, MI5 and GCHQ. They spy on their own citizens who are involved in perfectly lawful political campaigning. We will continue to fight until we achieve justice'. 

www.derbyshire.police.uk/Documents/About-Us/Herne/Operation-Herne---Report-2---Allegations-of-Peter-Francis.pdf

Allegation - SDS supplied intelligence to ‘The Blacklist’

On 18 August 2013 in The Guardian, Peter Francis claimed that he gathered intelligence on Trade Union Activists and passed it to a ‘black listing agency’. He claimed that he provided information regarding two specific individuals and that their details subsequently appeared on the ‘list’.

The first notification received by the MPS into allegations of blacklisting stem from a complaint from Christian Khan Solicitors in November 2012. This was made on behalf of the Blacklist Support Group. They allege that the MPS, Special Branch (including SDS) were complicit in the supply of information to the Consulting Association and similar organisations. They asserted that this practice led to people being unable to obtain employment. The allegation was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and initially they supervised the investigation. Between May and June 2013, they reviewed this decision and directed a local investigation, returning it to force to investigate.

The ‘Blacklist’ maintained at that time by a commercial enterprise known as The Consulting Association was a record of individuals believed to have disruptive or subversive stance that could adversely affect the workplace. There is no dispute that individuals named by Peter Francis appear on the ‘blacklist’. However, Peter Francis claims to have been deployed between 1993 and 1997. The Consulting Association record is dated from 1999, two (2) years after Peter Francis’ claimed deployment ceased.

There is no available evidence to suggest that SDS exchanged any information with either the Economic League or the Consulting Association. Twenty (20) test records have been highlighted by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as being the most likely to be the result of police information. These records have been investigated, revealing numerous alternative sources for information. A Special Branch officer stated in interview ‘The flow of information was purely one way’ the Economic League were a ‘conduit of information’ driven by their sense of ‘civic duty’.
The Economic League was treated as a source of information. It was not Special Branch policy to pass information to them or any other external organisation. There is no evidence that any information regarding the two individuals was ever shared with the Consulting Association.

Allegation - The SDS supplied intelligence to ‘The Blacklist’

20.1 Blacklisting was the recording and management of a list of people identified due to their political stance or perceived disruptive/subversive activity within the workplace. This was maintained by a commercial enterprise known as the Economic League (EL), which closed in 1993. The Consulting Association (CA) was started by a former employee of Economic League’s Services Group around this time. Both organisations were funded and supplied with information by subscribing member companies, and checked their records in order to make informed decisions regarding suitability for employment.

On 18 August 2013 in The Guardian, Peter Francis claimed that he gathered intelligence on Trade Union Activists and passed it to a ‘black listing agency’. He claimed that he provided information regarding two specific individuals and that their details subsequently appeared on the ‘list’.
The first notification received by the MPS into allegations of blacklisting stem from a complaint from Christian Khan Solicitors in November 2012. This was made on behalf of the Blacklist Support Group. They allege that the MPS and Special Branch (including SDS) were complicit in the supply of information to the Consulting Association and similar organisations. They asserted that this practice led to people being unable to obtain employment. In February 2013 the allegation was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) who initially elected to supervise the investigation. Between May and June 2013, they reviewed this decision and directed a local investigation, returning it to force to investigate.

Open source material was recovered and a number of key documents identified. It was established that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee (SASC) had previously held an investigation into the wider issue of blacklisting, in which many of the key stakeholders had given evidence. All of their discussions were published on the UK Parliamentary website.

In sworn testimony to SASC, a member of the Consulting Association stated that his organisation had no link to the police, although he admitted that its predecessor the Economic League did. The Economic League link was confirmed by a former head of intelligence for the group, who stated that he met various police officers on a relatively regular basis, but that any such discussions would not routinely involve individuals.

Much of the media coverage has focused on a statement from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in which it was claimed that much of the information could only have come from the police and security service. On request, the ICO have provided a copy of the seized blacklist and corresponding personal records.

There is no dispute that the individuasl named by Peter Francis appear on the blacklist. However, Peter Francis claims to have been deployed between 1993 and 1997. The CA record is dated from 1999, two (2) years after Peter Francis alleged deployment ceased.

SO15 records show one documented instance of the exchange of information between Special Branch and Economic League, dating from 1978. This related to a police enquiry about terrorism offences. The officer-in-the-case inadvertently disclosed the terrorism link to emphasise the importance of the inquiry. The Economic League recorded this disclosure as fact, leading to the individual being refused work at a later stage. A complaint was made which was investigated and subsequently corrected. This complaint was brought to the attention of both Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations and the Home Office. This incident was widely reported in 1981, subject to newspaper reports and a Panorama programme.

On 3 November 1978, Special Branch issued a Memorandum to all officers in relation to the disclosure of information and how seriously they regarded it. It reiterated Metropolitan Police Standing Orders, Paragraph 13 that prohibited searches of Special Branch on behalf of commercial organisations. It also documented that such ‘improper’ disclosure constituted a disciplinary offence. This memo came directly from the then Head of Special Branch.

20.2 Conclusions Operation Herne has established that the individuals identified by Peter Francis appear on the blacklist. However, Peter Francis claims to have been deployed between 1993 and 1997. The CA record is dated from 1999, two (2) years after Peter Francis alleged deployment ceased.

There is no evidence to suggest that SDS exchanged any information with either the Economic League or the Consulting Association. Twenty (20) test records have been highlighted by the ICO as being the most likely to be the result of police information. These records have been investigated, revealing numerous alternative sources for information. A Special Branch officer has stated in interview that, ‘The flow of information was purely one way’ the Economic League were a ‘conduit of information’ driven by their sense of ‘civic duty’. The Economic League was treated as a source of information. It was not Special Branch policy to pass information to them or any other external organisation. There is no evidence that any information reported by SDS operatives was ever shared with the Consulting Association.

The investigation into this matter continues and will be subject of reporting to both the complainants and the Commissioner. 

 

Blacklist Support Group

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCa8yQmZ70

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

Northern Voices on Manchester Radical History

SALFORD born folk legend, Ewan McColl, is remembered today more for his music and songs than his agit-prop plays which he performed during the 1930s and '40s. But it was his membership of the Communist Party and his political activities before the last war that led to MI5 opening a secret file on him in the 1930s and why they kept him and his friends, under close surveillance. Local writer and journalist, Derek Pattison, obtained access to McColl's MI5 file and an article by him was featured in Northern Voices 7 in 2007. An edited version of this article can now be found on Manchester Radical History http://radicalmanchester.wordpress.com/
also on http://northernradicalhistory.wordpress.com/ ‎

Northern Voices, MI5 & The Daily Telegraph

Can the Coppers Crack it?

IN Northern Voices No.8 we asked 'Was Cyril Smith Set Up?'  Back then we questioned if there was something called the 'Clockwork Orange' operation to discredit certain senior politicians, as Paul Foot had published a book that made this allegation, in the 1990s, entitled 'Who Framed Colin Wallace'.  In this book he suggested that in the 1970s Cyril was one of a number of figures including Jeremy Thorpe, Edward Heath and Harold Wilson, who some elements in the intellegence services had sought to discredit.  The plan was to manipulate the British political system, and place a more right-wing authoritarian government in power.  At least that was the theory. 

The thing that is now holding up any serious investigation into the allegations against Cyril Smith is the disappearance of the dossier of sexual abuse, that was held by the Lancashire Police at their special branch headquarters in Preston.  This week Tony Robinson, who worked for Lancashire police in the 1970s, told the Daily Telegraph he saw a police file that was 'thick' with allegations from lads who claimed they had been molested by Cyril.  This file, he said, had been looked at by the then Director of Public Prosecutions.  Commenting on the dossier Mr. Robinson said:  'I looked through Sir Cyril's file which was kept in a safe in our office.  It was thick full of statements from young boys alleging abuse.  It had been prepared for prosecution (and) written across the top of it were the words:  "No further action, not in the public interest DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions)".' 

A bit after that Mr. Robinson said:  'I was called by an MI5 officer.  They asked me if I had the file on Mr. Cyril Smith, and said:  "Please have this sent down to London".'  That, it seems, was at a time when Smith was the Liberal Party Chief Whip under his leader Jeremy Thorpe, and the Liberals were useful to the Labour Party in forming a government of the centre/ left.  It has been suggested that, at that time, there were elements in MI5 who sought to undermine the centre/ left in British politics including the Tory leader Edward Heath, and whose aim was to bring into power a more authoritarian government of the right (see Paul Foot's 'Who Framed Colin Wallace').  All this has been considered in Northern Voices No.8, our argument then was expressed thus: 
'Clockwork Orange, in the 1970s, was an attack on civil libertarians by elements who wanted a more authoritarian regime in Britain.  They got their wish with Margaret Thatcher.'

This week's report in the Daily Telegraph would now seem to lend some credibility to this view.  The worrying thing now is can the police get their hands on the dossier apparently held by MI5?

History of the Blacklist & the MI5 Connection

_______________________________________________________
RECENT findings about the unhealthy relationships of police and newspaper editors at the Leveson Inquiry, at which Lord Justice Leveson will examine the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians, and the strange story about the security services and the police in relation to a blacklist in the building trade told on the 4th, March on the front page Sunday OBSERVER by Daniel Boffey, seems now have a much longer pedigree judging from a recently unearthed article in The Independent on the 7th September 2001:
________________________________________________________

MI5 offers to spy for private firms

MI5 has told some of Britain's biggest companies that it may be prepared to provide intelligence on their business partners and rivals abroad.
For the first time, the security service this week openly invited representatives from industry and finance to its headquarters in Millbank, London, for a seminar called Secret Work in an Open Society.

The Independent has learnt that in between coffee and a buffet lunch, those attending were given a talk by Sir Stephen Lander, MI5's director general, on "What is the security service for?", during which he said companies ought to ask for help more often.

Since the end of the Cold War, MI5 has been trying to evolve into a service more interested in catching criminals and terrorists than foreign spies. This week's move will be seen as another attempt to re-invent itself as a more user-friendly service. Among the companies invited to attend were BT, Rolls-Royce, HSBC, Allied Domecq, Consignia, BP, Ernst & Young, Cadbury Schweppes and BAE Systems. Of the 64 executives invited, a high proportion were in market development, security or risk-assessment.

'Sir Stephen said he was sure that MI5 could help business more if only it were asked,' said one delegate. 'In situations where we are working abroad,' he said 'MI5 might have information on companies or individuals it could help us with if it did not involve breaching legislation on data protection or human rights.' 'He made the point that, increasingly, organised crime, drugs and money laundering are our common enemy. When getting into deals abroad - particularly Eastern Europe at the moment - you can get into bed with the wrong people if you don't have good risk- assessment information on them. Basically, he was anxious that MI5 shouldn't be thought of solely as a domestic organisation ... In return, he said there might be occasions when we can pass information back.'

The list of delegates gives an insight into the sort of executive MI5 is trying to reach: Nigel Carpenter, BP's deputy head of group security in the eastern hemisphere; Mike McGinty, security director at BAE Systems; Mike Harris, information security manager for Consignia; Michael Weller, BT's head of government security; and John Smith, head of security for the Prudential Corporation.

The seminar was organised in conjunction with the Whitehall and Industry Group, a body that aims to bridge the gap between business and government. Its patrons include Lord Haskins, chairman of Northern Foods and the Better Regulation task force in the Cabinet Office; Sir Andrew Turnbull, permanent secretary to the Treasury; Sir George Mathewson, chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group; Sir Richard Wilson, Cabinet Secretary and head of the Home Civil Service; and Digby Jones, director general of the Confederation of British Industry.

The practice of using the country's intelligence service to benefit companies is one performed in the United States for a number of years. There is evidence that it has used a communications eavesdropping system called Echelon to gather sensitive information on rivals in the European Union that has been passed on to US business. There is no suggestion that the British services intend to go that far, but this is thought to be the first time MI5 has brought in so many senior executives.

Even though they were not explicitly asked to keep the meeting secret, none of the delegates approached by The Independent yesterday [6th, September 2001] returned calls. In spite of a number of approaches, MI5 failed to comment. [taken from The Independent: 7th, September 2001]