Human rights group has accuses Rochdale council of trying to 'criminalise poverty'

From The Manchester Evening News

A human rights group has accused Rochdale council of attempting to 'criminalise poverty' in a legal crackdown on beggars in the town centre.

Liberty, an independent campaign organisation, says the plan to extend a current Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), which expires on July 23, for a further three years potentially breaches the European Convention on Human Rights and could be challenged in the High Court.

It also says it is 'likely' the council's consultation process over the extension and variation of the current PSPO breaches the Anti- Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which enabled local authorities to introduce such orders.

Liberty says: "It is unclear what an 'incident' is described as. Is it enough for someone sitting with a cup begging?"

It also accuses the council in its report of linking begging to anti-social behaviour.

The letter says: "(The report) says it provides an overview of 'ongoing problems within the town centre associated with anti-social behaviour that the current PSPO aims to tackle'.

"It is stated that there is CCTV of 159 'incidents' of street begging. Begging is not antisocial behaviour and should not be recorded as such."

Liberty claims there is no evidence in the report that there is a problem with begging in Rochdale by people who are not destitute.

It goes on: "This prohibition is therefore not based on evidence, it is not needed and must be removed.

"The wording 'No one at any time shall beg for money' amounts to a blanket ban on begging and is unreasonable."

The report says that in the public consultation in 2017 some members of the public felt that begging had a negative impact on the image of the town and that begging adversely affected business by putting people off coming into the town.

Liberty says: "It is grossly disproportionate to prohibit begging, which is relied upon as a lifeline by people suffering from poverty, in order to improve the aesthetic of Rochdale town centre.

"We note with great concern that the dispersal of people begging has substantially increased since the council’s (initial) PSPO was made.

"The council seems to be simply trying to cleanse its town centre of poverty."

And it adds: "Other councils have relied on, and published, data, witness statements, police reports, surveys, impact assessments, and many other sources of information to justify the need for a PSPO before setting out a proposed order and starting a consultation.

"If the council goes ahead with making this PSPO without sufficient evidence then it will be unlawful and vulnerable to challenge in the High Court."

Liberty also says: "The PSPO provisions (saying no-one at any time shall beg for money) also constitute a potential interference with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights."

The letter concludes: "This proposed variation and extension of the Rochdale PSPO is potentially not only unlawful and unreasonable; it is also a disproportionate interference with basic rights and with people’s right to inherent human dignity. It adds nothing to the fight to alleviate poverty. We urge you to think again."

A Rochdale council spokesperson said: "The response from Liberty will be considered alongside all the other comments received during the consultation period.

"Recommendations are due to be presented to the council’s cabinet committee later this month before a decision is made."

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

Will We Abandon The Enlightenment? by Les May

ON the first Easter Sunday we were together my wife rushed into the garden to tell me that the Pope was just about to give his address ‘Urbi et Orbi’, to the city and the world. I was baffled at her enthusiasm. Our mutual lack of understanding was because she had been brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition and I in the Anglican. It has not stopped us living in peace and harmony for 46 years. Nor has it meant that our ideas have remained fossilised in the past. But it’s a difference that had people imprisoned, tortured or burned at the stake 500 years ago.

The Reformation*, when Henry VIII broke with Rome and established himself as the head of the Anglican church, is seen by some as one of the most significant events in English history. But at this distance a more realistic appraisal is that it merely exchanged one form of intolerance for another; an insistence that one set of beliefs was the one true way, for another.

For the next 150 years the insistence that they, and they alone, knew the truth about how to worship their God drove those who happened to be in power at the time to impose their beliefs on the populace. Burning at the stake was in vogue during the reign of ‘Bloody Mary’, as she was called in my history book, but not that of my wife. During the heyday of Puritanism in the mid 17th century dancing and Christmas celebrations were forbidden, a bit like Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal to celebrate today, or the Taliban’s ban on pigeon flying.

And then it stopped; not all at once, not everywhere in the world, not even everywhere in Europe, but slowly this thing we call ‘The Enlightenment’ came into being. It wasn’t a single thing, but included a range of ideas centred on, sovereignty of reason, empirical investigation and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge. It advanced ideals such as individual liberty, constitutional government, separation of religion and state, and toleration, including religious toleration. The countries where these conditions still do not exist are too well known for me to need to enumerate all of them; three will suffice, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Although The Enlightenment has dethroned religion as the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge its ideals of individual liberty and of religious tolerance has ensured that those so inclined can hold and practice their beliefs without persecution by the state, and the state will act to ensure that they are able to do so. It is no coincidence that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said; ‘We have to speak freely, I’m much more towards the US end of the spectrum on freedom of speech than I am elsewhere towards the other end. I think we have to be open to hearing things we really dislike’.

Even if many of a religious persuasion do not, Welby is aware that his Anglican faith benefits from that ideal of tolerance which those of us who do not share his beliefs attempt to give meaning to. Tolerance of other peoples’ beliefs and their practice of them does not mean that they should be immune to critical analysis or criticism. I believe that any claims about the existence or non-existence of transcendental beings or deities have no meaning in the absence of any empirical test to determine their veracity. But it does not stop me defending the rights of Christians to express their views on God’s opinion on homosexuality, even though I think they are nonsense, or defending Asia Bibi against persecution in Pakistan.

In other words the freedom that the followers of Islam, including those who reside in Batley and are demanding that the teacher who did something they dislike should be sacked, have to practice their beliefs in this country rests firmly upon ideals of The Enlightenment. Insisting that we in the UK abandon those ideals and adopt their own stance of intolerance towards those whose views we disapprove of will not serve them well. Anyone for banning Halal slaughter?

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

EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE:

* Dating the Reformation

Historians usually date the start of the Protestant Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” Its ending can be placed anywhere from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which allowed for the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany, to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. The key ideas of the Reformation—a call to purify the church and a belief that the Bible, not tradition, should be the sole source of spiritual authority—were not themselves novel. However, Luther and the other reformers became the first to skillfully use the power of the printing press to give their ideas a wide audience.

Civic Spaces & Uncivil Councillors by Anonymous

Begging's at epicentre of a Storm of Political Controversy!

FOR a council whose entire raison d'etre and long term strategic response for the town centre regeneration appears to be to barge their way to the front of each and every available queue for cash handouts, begging bowl in hand to everyone from the European Social Fund to Westminster freebies it rankles with me they should point the finger of accusation at others less fortunate who are effectively doing exactly the same thing. Was it Goebbels who said: accuse the other side of that which you are guilty?

As for councillor expenses - let's not go there!

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

Recent media coverage of councillors calling for a Crackdown on begging so close to an election was entirely expected as it was a sickening and predictable re-hash of their previous political posturing whenever totally bereft of new ideas they opt for the easy target each & every time.

Blame someone else lest that electorate blame us is a tried and tested local mantra the world over and homeless people are seldom registered so no votes lost there then comrades.

Their views are not only repugnant but positively Dickensian. At a time when child poverty levels have been revealed to be at over 50% in some electoral wards it's nothing short of astounding that we do not have beggars on every street corner and bread riots across the Township as we did at the time of Peterloo!

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/140218/calls-for-crackdown-on-%E2%80%98criminal-element%E2%80%99-behind-increase-in-town-centre-begging-and-antisocial-behaviour

This Agenda Articles from the meeting in question are at:

http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/s78129/Rochdale%20Town%20Centre%20Public%20Space%20Protection%20Order.pdf

The section from the RMBC Zoom Meeting can be found at :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=372kukolzdY

Perfectly legitimate working legislation already exists on the statute book to effectively challenge trafficked Begging separate to and totally independent of PSPO. The Vagrancy Act is also still being enforced locally despite Council saying it is not. One suspects they are hyper sensitive to the fact they are still having to resort to such antiquated legislation at all after their ' flagship PSPO ' was meant to be the ultimate solution to anti-social behaviour Town Centre. Clearly it is not or why else would there be a call for a 'crackdown' at all?

Local Anti Public Space Protection Order campaigners are currently liaising with Liberty ( who called Rochdale Councils PSPO 'unlawful' when it was introduced ) and The Manifesto Club (Manifesto Club) to formulate a formal legal challenge to this 'crackdown'. Vulnerable homeless people, the vast majority mentally ill, addicted, fleeing domestic violence, illegally evicted or complex variations of all have very limited support options due to Covid (though this is not limited exclusively to the pandemic and was a problem previously) face to face 1:1 support for drug ,alcohol, substance misuse virtually non-existent as is mental health support which has existed in digital form only since March 2020 - if at all! No internet connection or no phone then no support.

For example there is a local mental health charity which draws in hundreds of thousands of pounds in funding each year that has remained resolutely closed for over a year offering only digital support sessions (such levels funding should be able to afford and create Covid safe spaces for individual 1:1 mental health support pods in a few weeks never mind over a year!) No wonder people throw themselves off the tops of shopping centres in sheer anguish and despair!

The likes of Blundell should be targeting the total inability of many local support agencies to support those in need rather than those in need of support. As well as proactively advocating for the vulnerable and agitating for increased funding rather than indulging in shameless self promotion & cheap electioneering prior to May Elections. Some might recall our councillors have previous form on this bludgeoning of the publicly visible result of their abject failures to deliver a functioning welfare & Social Care system policies for the vulnerable when Blundell and Danczuk pulled this stunt some years ago - again as a diversionary Black Op when questions were being asked of the dodgy duos mismanagement of Town centre regeneration. Again Beggars were a convenient scapegoated for crass corporate failure & incompetence.

Blundell was at the time paying his landlord ( Danczuc) in gin to crash at his Westminster pad paid for by taxpayers dosh - allegedly! Whilst the former Mrs Danczuk left an unsightly and rotting empty business unit in the shape of Danczuk's Deli blighting The Walk for years with a far greater visible blight left behind by a high profile social climber than any downwardly mobile beggar waiting for a handful of small change from sympathetic shoppers cashing in their pensions or collecting their monthly Universal Credit payments.

The Majority of the Councils much publicised Covid response is being delivered by idealistic unpaid volunteers whilst paid staff remain safe 'working at home' (behind the lines via a laptop screen facility) totally disconnected from the reality on the ground totally and dangerously oblivious of the crisis levels needed on the ground.

Any visiting councillors to one of the numerous Soup kitchens across the Borough will educate all but the most stupid of our councillors that poverty, exploitation & socail exclusion are the primary driver of begging. Something they are clearly unwilling or unable to address as a council and one which is lacking entirely from any of their May 6 election promises. As a collective the council has also turned down 1,868 Covid support applications whilst having some of the highest child poverty & unemployment & low skilled /low waged local economy in GM plus consistently high levels of C19

Simultaneously our 'pro-business council' has all the largess and generosity of Croesus when it comes to business bailouts - especially just before May local elections ?

https://www.questmedianetwork.co.uk/news/tameside-reporter/thousands-across-greater-manchester-denied-500-covid-support-payments/

Instead of having another toddler stop and stamping his designer jackboots Blundell needs a 'crackdown' on his own aggressive begging from the public purse as well as independent scruiting of his political record on the failed town center regeneration leaving two empty Indoor Markets and virtually derelict Drake Street, a partially deserted Yorkshire Street and a defunct Outdoor market in his wake?

Two hundred and fifty million quid for this? We were robbed!

Perhaps if Councillor Blundell and those like him rolled up their delicate shirt sleeves or blouses and did some proper graft down at a local Soup Kitchen or Foodbank (we have a potential sixty strong workforce of councillors champing at the bit to play their part in supporting their Town during the Pandemic Response after all!) instead of angling for cheap media stunts or photo-bombing on the backs of those socially committed individuals and collectives doing the real community regeneration work people would have at least a little respect for the man?

Cllr. Blundell is not interested in Building Back Better, he is only interested in building his own councillor profile and political career and needs to be called out publicly for it.

Kicking someone when they are down is the dictionary and my own definition of bullying. Blundell is not only a bully but an ill informed braggart & clown who should be nowhere near public office or paid from the public purse for his ill informed and biggoted opinions. Replace the word beggar with jew, gypsy, traveller, black or woman and you might have a clearer insight into how repugnant and stereotyping his views are in actuality

Where Blundell a member of a charity rather than a council he would be on a suspension pending an independent investigation from the charity commission on breach of safeguarding policy - quite possibly by the police under potential Hate Crime legislation. That a councillor can seek to , and is allowed to do so by his Party colleges, aided and abetted by an entirely complicit local media commentariat, to criminalise and scapegoat an entire section of the community in such a way tells you all that you need to know about what lessons have been learnt from previous Rochdale safeguarding scandals from Smith to the Grooming Scandals. Once again we only have to scratch the thin veneer to see the ugly unvarnished truth beneath.

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

Trump And Freedom Of Speech by Les May

A REGULAR THEME of what I have written for Northern Voices is the threat to freedom of speech posed by those who try to prevent people whose views they disagree with from presenting them to others. When this happens in universities and colleges it is commonly called ‘no platforming’. It’s a staple tactic of those who engage in the politics of identity.

It is the antithesis of how George Orwell defined liberty when he said ‘It is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. So is the decision by Twitter to refuse to allow Donald Trump to post on the social media platform an attack on liberty?

The Twitter decision does not prevent Trump saying whatever he likes. Twitter is under no obligation to provide space on it’s servers for the outpourings of Trump, myself or anyone else. If he wants to use some form of social media to enlighten his followers with his wisdom, he is entirely at liberty to set up his own version of Twitter.

Veteran Trump watchers will recognise the irony of his complaint. There are many instances at his press conferences of his refusing to answer questions he does not like and denigrating accredited journalists.

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

The Cauliflower Racket -

or some vegetables are more equal than others

By Andrew Wastling

____________________________________

BY way of reply to yesterday's piece Beggars Opera or Comic Opera? - Strangling Civil Liberties on a United Front, I'd like to raise a few points.

I don't doubt for a second that the nauseating culture of palpable nepotism and political cronyism was once again alive and flourishing  at Rochdale Town Hall  :It was like viewing a tribe of back-patting gangsters as both the Tory and Labour politicians vied with each other to heap on the praise ' writes the articles author. I can almost picture it now.  All we are really lacking is a corrupt City Mayor, a few more henchmen in double breasted suits with Fedora hats carrying violin cases ,a couple of high profile payola busts with a snazzy Bix Beiderbecke soundtrack piped into the council chamber. Retro Gangsterism - its the new rock'n'roll  !

Or maybe a more toned down theme more akin perhaps to a scene from Brecht's famous play The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui (1) portraying as it does the rise of a fictional 1930s Chicago mobster - Arturo Ui - and his attempts to control the cauliflower racket by ruthlessly disposing of the opposition to become chief vegetable gangster. The parallels are sometimes striking .We really should have a copy in the Library at The Ministry of Truth as No1. Riverside is to be shortly renamed.

Whichever is closer to the truth our town hall has of late  become an almost absurdist  theatrical experience where some of the performances  would not be out of place delivered in Al Capone pin stripe suits accompanied by gangsters molls with a mobsters getaway car revving up round the Town Hall - just in case anyone has to do a quick runner!

In this fevered political atmosphere its perhaps not  surprising that bashful Councillor Blundell did not intervene to challenge Councillor Sullivan and Councillor Howards motion to extend Public Space Protection Orders to the gates of local schools. Those  well known haven  for anti-social & criminal elements across the Borough ! Makes no difference , as Woody Guthrie said : ' Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen'.

After all it was only at the beginning of the month that Councillor Blundell was loudly proclaiming across the air-waves of  Key 101 radio station News on 8 March  that unless you were an 'aggressive beggar' you had '  absolutely nothing to fear from PSPO's. The Council 'is not the Gestapo' the Councillor responded slightly nervously . Quite right Councillor and we are here to ensure it never becomes anything close to resembling it. Even  if some members of our council would rather forget it those opposed to PSPO's maintain that :           'the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.'

#Rochdale councillor @johnblundell993 speaks to Key103 about plans to stop anti social behaviour in the town centre.

When it was pointed out that the proposal document for Rochdale Council does not use the word aggressive beggar but only beggar in the text I was accused of 'splitting hairs' and promoting 'fake news' .I'll leave it to Councillor Blundel to justify to the Public precisely how a PSPO initially proposed for use against aggressive beggars in the town centre ( in the councillors own words) has transformed itself  less than four weeks down the road into a one size fits all quick fix for a multitude of issues the Council have failed utterly to get to grips with?

At this rate by Palm Sunday we can no doubt look forward to the reintroduction of Prohibition, unlicensed Speakeasy's on The Butts, local Protection Rackets & wholesale counterfeiting & gangsters across the entire Borough. Ah, the joys and pitfalls of turbo charged capitalism combined with a soon to be almost unregulated neoliberal global economy.

Just for the record PSPO's outside schools can in a matter of hours after a chat with a senior Police Officer be transformed by a single council official into a ban on parents holding a 'Save Our School Rally' at the school gates in opposition to future closure plans . Don't say you haven't been warned folks.

Recent Twitter comments from bashful Councillor Blundel hardly instil widespread confidence such as :

@libertyhq 's press release on the Rochdale PSPO is not factual, scare mongering and is completely alien to what the council wants to do

( 24 March 2016 )

Or the equally strident if slightly pompous :

Elected local representatives are making this decision. @libertyhq load of London liberal elites looking down their nose at northern towns

( again on 24 March 2016)

Segments of this Twitter feed appear to not only fly in the face of reality but seems to fly directly in the face of Council claims the PSPO proposal was being put out for consultation and not be a decision made by 'elected local representatives' for a start - not to mention fly Icarus style into the truth of the Sun. They are indicative of the kind of juvenile responses some of our local councillors resort to when caught bang to rights with their trousers down by people outside the Rochdale 'bubble', who not only quite obviously know what they are talking about , but are able to run circles round our local 'Alpha-Councillors' with those awfully annoying facts and the even more despised evidence which even our local Rochdale decision makers have to reluctantly number crunch from  time to time. People  who have an in depth understanding of the Law & the Legal System are often problematic for Rochdale Council .Just refer back to the embarrassing public thrashing our council got in the national media from those with a crystal clear understanding  of the Health & Social Care  Sector. Liberty after all have only been advocating on British Law since 1934 so I'm sure we'd all defer to Councillor Blundel's greater breadth of legal working knowledge & experience on the complex intricacies of PSPO's than actual British Lawyers, (2).

It would be illuminating  to know precisely which part of Liberty's PRESS RELEASE is not factual, scaremongering so we can all reset our thought processes from 'thought crime' to acceptable Council approved cognitive dissonance immediately ?

Perhaps Councillor Blundell can clarify for us lowly proles how we should think sometime soon . So none of us get ideas above our station or get into the annoyingly bad habit of asking tricky questions of our betters?

______________________________________________________________________________________

(1). The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui or That Well-Known Racket .The scenario that Brecht presents is recognisably possible at other times, past, present and future. He points to a time of recession: people are suffering increasing hardship in deteriorating circumstances. Crime is on the increase, unemployment soars, street violence erupts. An enemy is at work, the people are told; a scapegoat is sought and hounded, while the well-off, anxious to preserve their position, join in the hunt or merely look the other way. Under similar circumstances Chicago produced Al Capone, and Germany produced Hitler, who rose to power on the backs of the wealthy establishment, which thought it could both control and use him, but which was blinkered by its fear of the "enemy within"

(2). Liberty is also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties. Founded in 1934, they  are a cross party, non-party membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK.

They promote the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness as the foundations of a democratic society.
Liberty is entirely independent. They're  not affiliated with any political party and they receive no Government funding – which means they're free to fearlessly and robustly criticise Government policy and truly hold the powerful to account. They  promote the values of equality, dignity, fairness and accountability in all that they do. 

Rochdale MBC & threat to 'Criminalise Poverty'

'LIBERTY' (the Civil Rights group) has written to Rochdale Borough Council urging it to abandon proposals that could criminalise the town’s most vulnerable people and curb residents’ civil liberties – with no public consultation.
The council is considering using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to introduce 10 separate criminal offences. PSPOs are disturbingly broad powers that let local authorities ban a huge range of activities.
The authority has proposed a ban on people “placing themselves in a position to beg or solicit money” at any time – effectively criminalising poverty when homelessness in England is increasing at an alarming rate.
The council also hopes to place a curfew on under-18s between 11pm and 6am – a measure usually reserved for a national emergency – and criminalise the unauthorised distribution of printed materials, which could violate residents’ freedom of expression and cause significant harm to local businesses.
A further ban on “foul and abusive language” has already been recorded widely in the press – and ridiculed across the globe.
If introduced, the PSPO would give police and council officers the power to issue on-the-spot penalties of up to £100. If unable to pay, those in breach could face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.
Liberty believes several of Rochdale’s proposed bans, if implemented, risk breaching residents’ fundamental rights, protected by the Human Rights Act. The Act requires the council not to behave in a way which would disproportionately affect  residents’ rights.
The council does not intend to consult the public on the plans.

Discriminatory and unworkable

In today’s letter, Liberty’s Legal Officer Lara ten Caten advises Cllr Mark Widdup that:

• The proposed ban on begging will punish vulnerable members of society by imposing financial penalties they cannot afford – cruelly forcing them to pay a fine using what little money they might have saved from the charity of others.
• PSPOs are extremely blunt instruments incapable of addressing complex social problems or sensitively dealing with targeted groups. PSPOs can only lead to fines, and are therefore likely to draw vulnerable people into both the criminal justice system and a cycle of debt.
• The proposed curfew on under-18s is disproportionate, discriminates against young people and is practically unworkable.
• A ban on the unauthorised distribution of leaflets would constitute an unjustified interference with the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart and receive information. Such a ban would curtail the rights of citizens to campaign on political or social issues, and could also harm local businesses which rely on leaflets for promotional purposes.
• The proposed swearing ban is unworkable and represents a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression.  

Lara ten Caten, Legal Officer for Liberty, said: “These proposals are a staggering misuse of power. The council is seeking to limit the rights and freedoms of Rochdale residents without providing any evidence of a need to do so – or even bothering to consult them in the first place.
“This PSPO would make criminals of the homeless and vulnerable, the young, the politically-engaged and businessmen and women alike.
“Criminalising those most in need is no answer to rising homelessness, while the swearing ban is so vague no one could possibly know whether they risk breaking the law or not.
“Rochdale deserves better. For the good of its residents, the council must abandon these plans now.”

Civil liberties group 'Liberty' threatens legal action if ICO doesn't prosecute companies for blacklisting!

The civil liberties group 'Liberty', have written to the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, demanding that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), prosecute 44 building firms that have illegally blacklisted 3,213 workers. In their letter to the Information Commisssioner, Liberty say:  'The limited action you have taken so far is completely inadequate.'

The letter also says that it is 'unlawful' for the Information Commissioner not to use his Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act powers and adds:  'You should seek to prosecute firms involved or hand over the results of your investigation to the police to enable them to bring prosecutions.'

Although 44 major UK construction companies including Carillion and Sir Robert McAlpine, have been linked to a clandestine organisation known as the 'Consulting Association'( C.A.) that was found to be operating a blacklist of workers following a raid by officers of the ICO in February 2009, and sharing this information illegally, with these companies for a fee, none of the companies involved with the C.A. have been prosecuted. Former Special Branch officer, Ian Kerr, who ran the C.A. from an office in Droitwich, was subsequently fined £5,000 after being prosecuted by the ICO.

Corinna Ferguson, a 'Liberty lawyer' told the Daily Mirror newspaper:"We can't believe the inaction of the Information Commissioner on a human rights violation of such wide public interest. If we cannot persuade the commissioner to discharge his public duty, we will consider seeking assistance from the courts."

The ICO told the newspaper that they had received the letter from Liberty and would be responding in due course. The GMB trade union is also taking legal action to force the ICO to contact people who they know are on the blacklist. The GMB estimates that that there are 2,863 people still unaware that they were on the list and being blacklisted for their trade union and political activities.