Author: Paul

Posted on

[Bring Back British Rail] We need your support to take Chris Grayling to court!

 

We need your support to bring Chris Grayling to court over the East Coast rail franchise fiasco. We can’t do this without you.

Please pledge and share today:
crowdjustice.com/case/eastcoast

Pledge to help us make East Coast public

Enough is enough! Our East Coast mainline was a brilliant success in public-ownership and should never have been re-privatised in 2015. Now it has failed for the third time at the hands of private operators: GNER in 2007, National Express in 2009 and now Virgin Trains East Coast in 2018.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has admitted that Virgin Trains East Coast “got its numbers wrong” and breached “a key financial covenant” in their franchise agreement. Yet, he is allowing its owners – Stagecoach and Virgin – to walk away and continue running and bidding for other rail franchises. We can’t let them get away with this.

We’re now working with public law experts Leigh Day to bring Chris Grayling to court to account for these decisions. We expect this to be a landmark Judicial Review case; exposing the farce of rail franchising for the shameful waste of public money that it is, and paving the way to a re-unified national rail network run in the public’s interest once again.

Please pledge and share today:
crowdjustice.com/case/eastcoast

Please help us reach more people by sharing online:

 
 

 

You have received this email because you are on the Bring Back British Rail mailing list. You will only receive a maximum of five emails a year updating you on key campaign activities and developments.

You can view our email archives here: www.bringbackbritishrail.org/newsletter

To unsubscribe, please send an email to: bringbackbritishrail-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net

 

Posted on

RMT Wishaw and Motherwell: Reasons they are against Labour Party Affiliation

RMT Wishaw and Motherwell:          12th April 2014

 

RMT affiliation to the Labour Party:

Branch and Regional Council Consultation

 

Preamble:

 

1)  On this and each and every occasion, we must examine what is in the best interests of our Members.

 

In relation to the “RMT Labour Party Affiliation Discussion Paper” circularised to Branches and Regional Councils, we are of the view that it does not provide in clear, concise and unambiguous terms answers to concerns of crucial importance for the Union and its Members. It also has clearly been presented with opinion, giving a particular bias towards affiliation to the Labour Party.

 

Any document of this nature should have informed Branches of the dates of the Meetings between the Union and the Labour Party and who was present representing both Organisations. It should also have indicated who the authors of the Discussion Paper were.

 

2)  We should remember that we were once affiliated to the Labour Party, so we understand very well the processes and machinery of how the Labour Party operates. The Document is replete with explanations of the processes within the relevant structures of the Labour Party: all portrayed as giving the Union some type of significant status when we know, in reality, that is not how it works.

 

3)  We should never ever forget that the Labour Party expelled the Union from its organisation. It is worthwhile to reflect on how this Union (an affiliate since its inception and our predecessor Union had laid the foundation of the Labour Party) was expelled.

 

4)  We were expelled by the Labour Party because we wanted (through the Rules of the Union) to allow our Regions, Branches and Members to have a democratic say on what political parties and candidates they choose to support – not just Labour. The Labour Party as an Organisation had failed to uphold the principles on which it was formed. Its political direction and policy objectives acted contrary to the values and aims of our Union and therefore was not acting in the best interests of our Members. We wanted to back candidates and parties who demonstrated clear support for the Trade Union and its policies and we did so. The Union judges candidates solely on their merits as advocates of policies that match the Union’s own programme and which would deliver for our members, their families and their communities.

 

Affiliation to the Labour Party would stop all that because it insists that the Union as an affiliate cannot support candidates in an election whether it be Local Authority, Scottish Parliament or Westminster Parliament that are in opposition to Labour Candidates.

__________________________________

 

RMT Wishaw and Motherwell  opposes Affiliation to the Labour Party:

 

It is our position that we support the status quo in relation to political affiliation viz. that we remain without any affiliation to any current political party. We consider that there should be no infringement of the Rules of the Union that were introduced to allow Branches to submit bona fide requests for support and endorsement of candidates to include those from outwith the Labour Party, whom Branches consider will act in the best interests of our members. These Rules must remain.  In this context we reject any interpretation or suggestion that all candidates must declare support for the Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn as being in complete contradiction of the Rules of the Union.

 

It is claimed that there is a transformation taking place within the Labour Party because of Corbyn’s leadership. We are not convinced.

In any event it would be a mistake to affiliate to any organisation under the circumstances whereby a leader is seen as the reason for joining – Corbyn in this instance. This would be a gross error and Labour and Trade Union Movement history informs us so.

We as a Branch are implacably opposed to all the actions and policies of the reactionary and reprehensible Tory Party and Government. We note that in the General Election of 2017, even when the Tories delivered an inept campaign based on deceit, regressive policies, division and incompetence under the leadership of one of the most useless Prime Ministers ever, the Labour Party failed to remove them from Office. In Scotland the once powerful Labour Party are now the third party in the Scottish Parliament and at Local Authority level in some areas have taken control through arrangements with the Tories.

 

Throughout the UK where our Members are fighting to save jobs, pay and conditions there are Labour led authorities not prepared to give support. This is not a new state of affairs in the Labour Party.

 

It is argued that a mass party of labour can be born through the ranks of the current Labour Party – “a mass party of labour that fights in the interest of the working class and Labour now has the potential to be that Party”, it is said.  Have we forgotten that the principal reason as to why the Union is not affiliated to Labour is because the Labour Party abandoned the cause of acting on behalf of working people? The Party lost trust and will not be transformed.

 

The correct position adopted by our late, lamented General Secretary Bob Crow was to argue for a “new party of labour” – “the time for an alternative party of Labour is now”. His position was clear in relation to the Labour Party. On the 16th of February 2014 only a few short weeks before his passing he was asked by Andrew Neill, in an interview on the Sunday Politics show “Will the RMT reaffiliate to the Labour Party?” and he replied “I have got no intention to”.

Our current General Secretary on his election to succeed Bob Crow stated “it is important to understand that there will be no deviation from the industrial and political strategy mapped out under Bob’s leadership.”  Mick Cash himself was not averse to establishing an alternative party to Labour. Addressing the ASLEF 2015 Annual Conference he said “I cannot see in my time as General Secretary that we will get back into the Labour Party”. Because we have a huge problem with the party that was born out of our movement endorsing policies that work against this movement.”

 

Labour lost the 2015 and 2017 General Elections.

 

Currently we have in our Rules the freedom to allow Branches to seek approval to support political candidates from any Party who act in line with our Union policies.  This could and has included in the past individual Labour Party Candidates.

Why would we want to change this favourable position?

This important freedom within our Rules allows our representatives (National Executive Committee, National Officers, Regional Organiser and others) acting on the Members’ behalf not to be constrained when dealing with the Government, Devolved Administrations, Regional and Local Authorities. In effect the Members’ interests are paramount and not compromised by or subservient to any political party allegiance.

 

It should be noted that our Members in Scotland in the context of the Scottish Independence Referendum of September 2014 voted in a referendum ballot to support the case for Scottish Independence. The Labour Party is implacably opposed to Scottish Independence and even seeks to deny the Scottish people another vote on this issue. (their 2017 General Election Manifesto states this). How’s that for an organisation that claims to support Democracy?  The Labour Party are directly acting against the Union policy on this matter as dictated by our Members.

 

Of course, over the years successive Labour Governments have failed to repeal the Anti-Trade Union Laws, Renationalise the Railways, shied away from policy commitments and failed to tackle in any meaningful way a rotten political system that has produced austerity, inequality, division and severely impacts on the most vulnerable in our society.

 

Those who argue for re-affiliation contend that it is different now under Corbyn’s Leadership. They are wrong – bitter experience has taught us that the Labour Party are to be judged by their actions in government and not by promises in opposition.

 

We should stand by the principles inherent within our Rules. Our current political strategy is in the best interests of our Members. Bob Crow expressed the benefit to our members when he said –

 

“By freeing ourselves from the shackles of automatic Labour support, RMT’s political influence is thriving with political groups established in the British, Scottish and Welsh parliaments and assemblies that involve a base of supportive Labour representatives, Greens and SNP. The condition for joining is that elected members sign up to the core political priorities laid down by the Union”

 

The Branch agrees with this assessment and concludes that there is no convincing argument for affiliation to the Labour Party.   END.

Posted on

CHANGES TO CRIMINAL HELPLINE NUMBER

To: All Branches, Regional Councils & Regional Offices

 

Dear Colleague,

 

RE: CHANGES TO CRIMINAL HELPLINE NUMBER

 

I write in relation to the above matter. I have received notification that Powell Spencer Solicitors are currently in the process of installing a new system to handle out of hours calls for the Criminal Helpline. The new system will not be fully installed until the 27th April 2018.  In the meantime members should call on the usual switchboard number, 020 76045600, at all hours in order to access the criminal helpline.

 

Following 27th April 2018, the office hours number will be 020 76045600, and the new out of hours number will be 020 7624 8888.

 

I would be grateful if you could bring the contents of this circular to the attention of your members.

 

 

Yours sincerely

Mick Cash

General Secretary

Posted on

Why LUEngineering Branch decided against Affiliation to the Labour Party

Following several branch meetings to discuss the matter of whether to reaffiliate to the Labour Party, our Branch decided against.

 

We also decided to take part in the broader campaign to keep our political independence

 

 

Click here to read why

 

 

Please ‘like’ the campaign facebook page –

 

https://m.facebook.com/Campaign-to-defend-RMTs-political-strategy-731272743663085/

 

 

Here are others that agree

 

The Campaign to defend RMT’s political Strategy supporters include (Individuals in a personal capacity):

LU Engineering Branch

RMT Offshore Energy Branch

Wishaw and Motherwell Branch

Paul Shaw – NEC (Maritime North)

Paul Reilly – NEC (Midlands)

Andy Budds – NEC (Yorks & Lincs)

Del Marr – NEC (South East)

Mark Northard – NEC (Scotland)

Andy Littlechild – NEC (London Transport)

Gordon Martin – RO (Scotland & N. Ireland)

Jake Molloy – RO (Scotland)

Warwick Roberts – MerseyRail Guards Rep

David King – Newcastle Rail & Catering Br Sec and striking North Rail guard.

Michelle Rogers – Br sec Mans Sth & former NEC member

David Hainey – Br Sec (Wishaw and Motherwell)

Mike McCaig – Br sec Offshore Energy Br.

Joe Kirby – Asst Sec Offshore Energy Br

Paul Jackson – Br Sec LU Engineering Branch.

Les Harvey – LU Engineering Asst Sec

Lewis Peacock – LU Engineering Political Officer

Paul O’Brien – LU Engineering Chair & SGM del.

Carlos Barros – Piccadilly/District West Br President

Cat Cray – Political Officer LTRC

Glen Hart – LTRC Secretary & Chair BAEM Advisory Ctte

John Reid – Former NEC member and retired member.

Paul McDonald – Wimbledon Br Sec & Wessex Regional President

Ted Woodley – SGM delegate

Gary Harbord – SGM delegate

Jared Wood – SGM delegate

John Holmes—SGM delegate

Greg Hewitt – former NEC member

Conor Cheyne – Inverness Br & Young Member

Declan Ritchie – LT Region Asst Sec

 

Posted on

Public inquiry finally confirm Mark Cassidy as an undercover police officer that infiltrated construction union UCATT

Undercover police officer HN15 = Mark Cassidy = Mark Jenner

The undercover policing public inquiry has finally confirmed that the joiner many of us knew as Mark Cassidy was in truth an undercover police officer. His real name is Mark Jenner and b

etween 1995-2000, he infiltrated the construction UCATT (his subs were paid from a bank account set up by Special Branch)

 

He also infiltrated rank and file groups including the Building Worker Safety Campaign, the meetings of which he chaired at the Colin Roach Centre in Hackney. Jenner / Cassidy also targeted RMT, Unison, CPSA, TGWU and was on numerous picketlines including Dahl Jenson at Waterloo, JJ Fastfoods at Tottenham Hale and L.B. Southwark DLO.

 

Mark Cassidy / Jenner was first publicly named in by an article by journalist & union activist Mark Metcalf and in Blacklisted book by Phil Chamberlain & Dave Smith. The Met Police issued a public apology to ‘Alison’, the activist he lived with during the five years of his deployment. It is shameful that the Met and the public inquiry have taken so long to admit that Mark Cassidy was an undercover police officer from the Special Demonstration Squad, something that everyone has known for years.

 

‘Alison’, Mark Metcalf, UCATT (now part of UNITE) and blacklisted workers Brian Higgins, John Jones, Steve Hedley, Frank Smith, Dan Gilman & Dave Smith (who attended meetings, protests and pickets with Mark Cassidy / Jenner) have all been granted core participant status in the undercover police public inquiry.

 

This public confirmation about Mark Cassidy comes just a week after the Met confirmed that police provided information to the building industry blacklist.

 

Blacklist Support Group send a huge hug to ‘Alison’ and all the women activist at Police Spies Out of Lives for their inspirational battle to force the authorities to tell the truth about the undercover police officers that abused them.

 

 

https://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/finally-confirms-hn15-mark-cassidy/

Full story on Mark Jenner: http://powerbase.info/index.php/Mark_Jenner

 

 

 

 

Alison’s Statement in full:

“I welcome the Inquiry finally confirming that my former partner Mark Cassidy was an undercover police officer and that his name now appears on the UCPI website’s list of cover names. It is deeply disappointing, however, that it has taken the Inquiry so long to confirm a fact that we exposed over five years ago.

There is no restriction order on his real name: Mark Jenner. Yet his real name – and the real names of other confirmed officers -are not listed on this table, making it hard for the public to keep track of who’s who. It feels as if they’re always trying to keep as much hidden as possible.

His employer, the Metropolitan Police, has still not confirmed his identity or given me any information as to why I was spied on. Despite appealing my Data Protection Act request, I’ve been told repeatedly that the (then) Commissioner had nothing he was obliged to share with me. I cited Jenner in the case we brought against the Metropolitan Police in 2011. In 2013, his photograph, cover and real names were in the press, and I gave testimony to the Home Affairs Select Committee about my five year relationship with him. The Inquiry began in 2015 and I have been given no explanation as to why it has taken three years since then to confirm the truth.

I and other women similarly deceived have received no disclosure about how these abusive relationships were allowed to happen. None of those responsible has been held to account, and the direction the Inquiry has taken towards greater secrecy since the appointment of Sir John Mitting does not bode well for this being remedied.

With other women who have had relationships with undercover officers, I have written this week to the Home Secretary calling for an urgent meeting to discuss our concerns. Our experience is the result of institutional sexism within the police and recent comments by the presiding judge appear to lack any understanding as to what this means.

The Inquiry needs a panel of advisers who have sufficient expertise and diversity to be able to recognise and challenge sexism, racism and police malpractice. As a priority, it should release the cover names of all officers and the files they compiled on activists and campaigners. It should release the names of all groups about whom information was gathered.

If those who have abused their power are to be held to account and the scale of political spying in this country is to be exposed, the Home Secretary needs to act. It is in the public interest for this Inquiry to have the confidence of its core participants. Without transparency, how can the extent of the wrong-doing be understood? How can lessons be learned? And most importantly, how can human rights abuses perpetrated by covert police units be prevented in the future?’

 

Blacklist Support Group

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

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNcgrNs6pB8

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

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

 

 

Posted on

RMT RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH MINISTER OVER SPIKE IN RACIST ABUSE

RMT RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH MINISTER OVER SPIKE IN RACIST ABUSE OF STAFF IN WAKE OF HEADLINES ABOUT TERROR CELL’S ON LONDON TRANSPORT

 

Tube union RMT has today written to the Minister of State for Security, Ben Wallace, after Government comments about the possibility of terrorists embedding themselves within London Transport were turned into front page headlines last week, leading to a spike of racist abuse and threats against staff on London Underground over the weekend.

 

In the letter, RMT General Secretary Mick Cash, says:

 

“I am writing to you in respect of the article on the front page of the Evening Standard in the final edition on Friday 6th April.

 

Headlines as we know are important to any newspaper and a story like this was always going to be of particular interest in London. However I wanted to share with you that I have received a number of urgent calls from staff working over the weekend who have been racially abused and threatened by passengers. The inference from the passengers involved being that the staff are all part of a terrorist cell operating in London Transport.

 

The headlines do not reflect all the good work that takes place with the RMT through consultation on safety and security matters. RMT Regional organiser for London Transport John Leach was at a meeting with Director of Health and Safety and Transport for London Head of Security last Friday and none of this was mentioned. The headline was the first that RMT had heard of it. John also spoke to London Underground Managing Director, Mark Wild on Sunday and he told John that the whole subject as a news story came out the blue and the Standard did not use London Underground’s quote backing their staff.

 

I appreciate that you, the police and the security services have a role to play in helping to protect those using the Tube, but the staff are right in the front line, every day ensuring that passengers are safe and secure.

 

With an employer the size of Transport for London there may well be people who are under investigation. I would urge caution about the use of lurid headlines though and highlighted figures that state 3000 people are under active scrutiny could lead people to believe they are all in London transport. Such an impression can only fuel racism and the possibility of violence against staff which is not something any of us want to see.

 

The Standard also referenced Transport for London autistic staff by headlining that extremists ‘are grooming autistic people for terror’. This is appalling scapegoating of a vulnerable group of employees who now also feel singled out, and has no bearing in fact.

 

Staff do not need to be the focus of smears, abuse or threats given the crucial jobs they have to perform on the transport network in London keeping people safe.

 

I hope you will therefore join with me to support responsible reporting of such sensitive matters which is in the best interests of staff and passengers alike.”

 

‎RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash, said:

 

“RMT has always made it clear that safety and security on the transport network is an over-riding priority of this trade union and our officials are in constant contact with tube managers in pursuant of that objective.

 

“Today we have written to the minister asking for him to support the union call for responsible reporting of these matters in light of the spike of racist abuse and threats that were targeted at front line tube staff over the weekend off the back of lurid, front-page headlines on Friday.

 

“The union understands that the first senior London Underground managers knew of this story was when they were contacted by reporters and we hope that tube managers and the Mayor will support and protect staff facing threats and abuse as a result of the coverage.”

Posted on

Labour Party Affiliation

RMT Labour Party affiliation consultation – please be involved in the discussion

 

As you may be aware your union is consulting RMT Branches over whether the union should affiliate to the Labour party and I am writing to explain the current situation and to advise you that your NEC is asking for the widest possible  involvement of members in this discussion by attending any meetings of your Branch where this will be discussed.

The decision to hold this consultation was made by a meeting of the RMT 2017 Annual General Meeting (AGM). The AGM is your union’s supreme governing body and is comprised of elected rank and file RMT delegates.  Your AGM determined,

“Jeremy Corbyn has now twice been overwhelmingly elected leader of the Labour Party and the General Election saw the popular embrace of a left programme which is now officially Labour Party policy. Not only is the socialist leadership of the Labour Party now in a very strong position the left in the Labour Party in general is in its strongest position for over a generation.

 

Just as it was in the interests of our members to support Jeremy Corbyn being leader of the Labour Party and to support Labour at the election, it is now in the interests of our members for the union to do all it can to support, defend, and develop the socialist advances that have been made both within the Labour Party and the country as a whole.

How we do this however is a matter debate, with a number of strongly held and honourable views. It is also important that we seek the maximum possible involvement of Branches and Regional Councils. Therefore we recommend that there is a consultation with Branches and Regional Councils on whether the significant socialist advances within the Labour Party described above should be defended and advanced by the union affiliating to Labour, or not,with a report back to a Special General Meeting.

This is consistent with our existing AGM policy to create a mass party of Labour that fights in the interests of the working class as Labour arguably now has the potential at least to be that party.  It is also consistent with our policy that any questions of affiliation are a matter for our union’s supreme governing body.”

Following union discussions with the Labour Party last year and your NEC’s subsequent decision to raise a series of issues with the Labour Party as requested by the 2017 AGM your union received a letter from the Labour Party inviting the union to affiliate to the Labour Party.  The union also received from the Labour Party responses to the issues we have raised and these have been provided to Branches.

 

Your NEC is urging Branches and Regional Councils to respond to the consultation and hold special meetings as necessary and encourage the widest possible involvement of our members.

 

Your NEC has asked that Branches and Regional Councils respond by no later than Friday 18th May 2018 to enable a report back to a Special General Meeting which will take place no later than 1st June 2018.

 

Please contact your Branch if you wish to be involve in this important discussion.

Posted on

Joke is on passengers says RMT

Joke is on passengers says RMT as 1st April marks two years of failure and broken promises on German owned Northern Rail Franchise

 

RMT members to hold week of protest at stations across the north over threats to safety, service and accessibility

 

1st April 2018 marks the two-year anniversary of the beginning of the Northern Rail franchise run by German State rail owned Arriva Rail North.

 

Instead of the much herald promises of improvement in services the franchise has been beset by problems. At the same time it’s German state rail owners stand to profit while passengers suffer.

 

RMT is warning passenger services, safety and accessibly are set to get even worse if Northern get away with their plans to introduce Driver Only Operation and remove guards from trains. RMT members are to hold a week of protest at stations across the north starting on 3rd April to highlight the dangers of driver only trains.

 

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said,

 

“It’s bad enough that Northern passengers have not seen any sign of the promised improvements but it is unforgivable that Northern are about to make matters worse by getting rid of guards who do so much to assist passenger service, safety and accessibility.

 

“What is unbelievable is that because Northern is owned by German State railways the German railway will profit and get better on the back of these cuts to northern services and jobs.  That’s no April fool, its true and the joke is well and truly on passengers.

 

“RMT members will be protesting at stations across the north this week to highlight our concerns about the attack on jobs and safety by the German state owned northern franchise and we will be calling on the Secretary of State for Transport to stop supporting these plans and reverse them.”

 

 

 

Notes to editors

 

RMT will be leafleting stations across the Northern Network from Tuesday 3rd April 2018 to Friday 6th April 2018.

 

TUESDAY – 3rd APRIL 2018

 

Outside Barrow in Furness Railway Station -05.15 to 07.15

Outside Carlisle Citadel Railway Station – 07.00 to 09.00

Outside Windermere Railway Station – 11.00 to 13.00

Outside Whitehaven Railway Station – 17.00 to 19.00

 

To be arranged – Workington and possibly Ulverston

 

WEDNESDAY – 4th APRIL 2018

 

Outside Buxton Railway Station -06.45 to 08.30

Outside Manchester Victoria Station – 07.30 to 09.30

Outside Wigan Wallgate Railway Station – 07.30 to 09.30

Outside Liverpool Lime Street Station – 16.00 to 18.30

 

To be arranged – Blackburn, Manchester Piccadilly (Blackpool North to be arranged later)

 

 

 

THURSDAY – 5th APRIL 2018

 

*Outside Leeds City Railway Station – 06.30 to 09.30

*Outside Wakefield Kirkgate Railway Station – 07.30 to 09.30

Outside Sheffield Railway Station – 16.00 to 18.00

 

To be arranged – Doncaster, York, Harrogate, Huddersfield, Skipton and Hull.

 

FRIDAY – 6th APRIL 2018

 

Outside Newcastle Central Station – 08.00 – 09.00

Outside Hexham Railway Station – 16.30 – 18.30

 

To be arranged – Middlesbrough

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

 

Posted on

Please VOTE ‘1’ for Steven Skelly

Please VOTE ‘1’ for Steven Skelly

 

He is a proven candidate that can deliver for members

 

  • A proven Negotiator
  • Defender of Jobs and Security
  • Strong and Effective Leadership
  • Experienced in many areas
  • Proven ability to build a strong union

 

Posted on

Blacklist Support Group update 27.03.18 – that was the week that was

A massive week in our campaign

 

  1. On Wednesday with the walkout of the Spycops inquiry in a show of no confidence in Judge Mitting. The Blacklist Support Group took that décision in solidarity with others families including the Lawrence’s and other groups being represented within these proceedings.

Our collective message was clear – We are done with stonewalling and whitewashes.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/21/campaigners-stage-walkout-of-secretive-police-spying-inquiry

https://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2018/03/23/spycops-victims-walkout-police-inquiry

https://leftfootforward.org/2018/03/government-must-restore-credibility-of-spy-cops-inquiry/

 

  1. On Friday – The Met Police finally officially confirmed that Special Branch and other police were involved in the Blacklisting of construction workers. The following disclosures have now been widely reported in the worlds news. Blacklisted workers appeared and our supporters appeared on TV and radio throughout the day. This has been 6 years going back to 2012 since we first raised it through our QC Imran Khan through the IPCC.

 

Blacklist Support Group would like to have it placed on record our appreciation for all the activists, lawyers, investigative journalists, researchers, trade unionists and politicians who have worked alongside us and whose efforts have finally forced the Met Police to make these admissions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-trade-unions-latest-special-branch-blacklist-support-group-ipcc-construction-industry-a8270036.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/officers-likely-to-have-passed-personal-files-to-blacklisters-says-met

https://www.union-news.co.uk/met-police-admit-spying-on-trade-unionists-for-blacklisting-bosses/

https://evolvepolitics.com/of-course-the-met-police-colluded-with-blacklisters-how-else-did-i-appear-on-their-list/

 

  1. After the revelations about police collusion in blacklisting, Unite the Union are now considering opening new legal proceedings against the Met Police. Watch this space

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/police-blacklisting-admission-could-lead-to-fresh-legal-action/

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/unite-poised-take-legal-action-against-met-over-blacklisting

 

  1. With the above in mind, we ask supporters to highlight the Met Police admission to their local elected Police Commissioner, many of whom are Labour politicians and run our Police Forces. We suggest that our supporters send letters using the text below as a standard template making amendments as you see fit:

Blacklist Support Group open letter to our Police Commissioner’s over police collusion and spying.

The Blacklist Support Group notes the recent and most shocking disclosures and statement of the Metropolitan Police regarding the undercover policing scandal. It is with huge dismay that it has taken 6 years for the Metropolitan Police to admit that police supplied information to the unlawful construction blacklist. And only then after our legal representatives complained to the IPCC back in 2012.

Our attention must now turn to the solutions. Aside from any legal action against these political policing units, we call upon Police Commissioners to now come out in full support of those who suffered as a consequence of these clandestine anti-democratic operations.
We therefore ask the Police Commissioners to go on record and condemn the actions of the undercover police units spying on trade unions unreservedly and call for these covert political policing units that spy on legal democratic political campaigns should be disbanded immediately.

 

Roy Bentham co-Secretary of the BSG added:

“This culture of impunity has to end. As someone who seen it as a Hillsborough survivor it’s appalling it still appears to be rife within our police forces. As Labour politicians, our commissioners also have a duty to serve the people who voted them in. A statement on denouncing these black ops is surely the bare minimum and we need promises of transparency going forward as that is the only way to win our trust back as ordinary working class citizens”

 

  1. Another great article from our friends at the International Employment Rights organisation mapping out the terms of reference for a full public inquiry into Blacklisting.

http://www.ier.org.uk/news/think-tank-blacklisted-workers-need-change-law-well-public-inquiry

https://leftfootforward.org/2018/03/blacklisted-workers-need-more-than-a-public-inquiry-they-need-a-change-in-the-law/

 

  1. Retraining for Blacklisted workers.

Letters have gone out to Unite members with regards to this issue as set out in the settlement terms of the High Court cases.

We have also contacted Unite on behalf of blacklisted workers represented by Guney Clarke & Ryan solicitors in the High Court litigation. We will update on that in due course

 

  1. That was the week that was:

http://campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2018/03/25/12-big-events-this-week-in-the-spycops-scandal/

 

In solidarity and keep the faith

 

Roy Bentham – Joint secretary

 

 

Posted on

Spycops victims stage mass walk out at public inquiry

Victims of undercover police units and their lawyers staged a mass walk out during today’s hearing of the undercover policing public inquiry calling for the removal of Sir John Mitting as the new judge in charge of the inquiry. Sir John Mitting has told the inquiry, that victims will be be met with a ‘wall of silence’ in key parts of the inquiry and is granting anonymity to almost every police officer – so the public inquiry will be held mainly in secret. This will not be justice. We are not prepared to participate in a process in which the victims are merely window dressing.

 

Below and attached is the full transcript of the submission made by Phillipa Kaufman QC, representing over 200 of the ‘non-state, non police core participants’ in the inquiry including Doreen and Neville Lawrence, women activist who were decided into relationships with undercover officers, anti-racist campaigners and trade unions.

 

Blacklisted workers and the Blacklist support Group have been granted ‘core participant status’ in the inquiry because of undercover police infiltration of trade unions and were part of the walk out.

 

Blacklist Support Group Statement for Undercover Policing Public Inquiry hearing Wed 21st March 2018
“Blacklisted workers who have been kept under surveillance by political policing units were always skeptical about whether the British state investigating itself would truly provide justice. But under John Mitting, the public inquiry has descended into a good old fashioned establishment cover-up.

Mitting was put in charge to carry out a job of work on us – and he’s doing it. Time and again he gives the police the benefit of the doubt, to the detriment of those whose lives have been torn apart by this human rights scandal.

Tinkering around the edges isn’t going to change things. We have no confidence in Mitting. He must go and needs to be replaced with a panel of experts who have have at least some degree of empathy with the victims and are prepared to question the accounts of undercover police officers who have been trained to lie”.

Dave Smith – core participant in ‘union strand’ of public inquiry.

 

UNDERCOVER POLICING INQUIRY – ORAL Submission  21/3/18

  1. Sir, before you start today’s hearing I would like to make submissions on behalf of the NPSCPs.
  2. As you know we represent about 200 individuals – we cannot be precise because some of the CPs are groups and it is anyone’s guess how many individuals are represented as individuals relating to that group.
  3. Over the last few months we have expressed to you increasing concerns about the manner in which the anonymity application process has been conducted.   We have reached a point where our concerns can no longer be ignored and have reached a head.
  4. The focus of the NPSCPs now very grave concerns are disclosure and well, to be frank, you.
  5. Disclosure –
  6. From the first moment that we were invited to participate in the individual anonymity application process we have taken strenuous steps to ensure that disclosure is made which is sufficient to ensure both that the need for openness to be maximised is ensured and second, relatedly, that disclosure is made that will enable decisions to be taken on a properly informed basis. By that I mean that decisions are taken which, to the extent possible, test the police’ contentions as to why anonymity orders are required.
  7. Your response has consistently been that our argument is circular and that you cannot provide more information.

iii.     As with disclosure so too with your reasons.  These are scant and largely uninformative.  You have never indicated that you take account of the compelling public interest factors favouring disclosure let alone explain why they have been discounted.

  1. We agree entirely with the observations in the submissions on behalf of Mr Francis at paras 4-6.  I will read these in full because they echo so precisely the feelings of my clients.

 

  1. The opaque nature of the Chairman’s reasoning has attained a new height in his ‘minded to’ note no. 3: in it he has dispensed with open reasons altogether in relation to his indications re HN109. This is so despite the fact that the Chairman is aware of the extreme frustration that his general approach to the restriction order process has caused thus far.
  2. A considered decision not to publish any open reasons at all, in the context of an officer in relation to whom the current risk of physical harm is assessed as “low” with any increase by revelation of real or cover name assessed as “very low”, signals a disregard for those, like PF, who have shown a real respect for the Inquiry’s processes by not revealing information that they hold and in relation to which the Chairman has no power to restrict.
  3. PF has been prepared to engage with this judicial process (which he was instrumental in bringing about) in the belief that this process would fairly balance the public interest in openness with other factors at play. Failing to give any reasons for restricting both a real and cover name of a former UCO, who was a manager at a crucial period of time in SDS history, and where there is no disclosed risk, significantly undermines the trust and belief in the Inquiry process that PF has shown to date, compounding his perception that there is a lack of mutual respect.
  4. Our argument has consistently been that the anonymity applications form an absolutely critical part of the process. If you don’t get this right now then so much of what has gone wrong in the undercover policing operations of the SDS and NPOIU will forever remain secret.  That is precisely the problem that Ellison ran into, namely that he could not test the police accounts against those of the people the officers had spied on. My clients greatly fear you are walking into the same dead end.
  5. In short we have got precisely nowhere in relation to our attempts to ensure that we can meaningfully participate.

vii.     It is now abundantly clear, particularly in light of the latest disclosure and minded to indications which form the basis of this hearing that we simply cannot participate in this hearing in any meaningful way – you of course have our written subs.  Your minded two indications again close off all avenues for getting to the truth in relation to two critical officers, two managers.  This in circumstances where we have just learnt from the Met in relation to one of the women with whom Mark Kennedy had a relationship when working with the NPOIU, that his managers and supervisers acquiesced in his sexual relationship.

viii.     Our clients are not prepared actively to participate in a process where their presence is mere window dressing lacking all substance and meaning which would achieve nothing other than to lend the process a legitimacy it does not have.

  1. The second major area of concern is with the Inquiry Panel.  This concern falls into two parts:-
  2. The first concerns the failure to ensure that the inquiry is heard by exactly that “a Panel”, representing a proper cross section of our society and in particular including individuals who have a proper understanding of discrimination both on grounds of race and sex.
  3. Instead we have the usual white, upper middle class, elderly gentleman, whose life experiences are a million miles away from those who were spied upon.
  4. And, the very narrow ambit of your experience has been made apparent in relation to your understanding of issues relating to women, in your minded to note, what you said at the hearing and maintained in your decision in relation to HN58.   I will remind you of your observation in the minded to note that HN58 is, in your view, very unlikely to have had any intimate relations with those he spied upon because he had been married for many years.
  5. You will recall the reaction of those present in court when you said this. You will recall acknowledging in response to that reaction that maybe you are somewhat naiive and a little old fashioned.  Yet, what is even more alarming perhaps than your original observation is the fact that you maintained that naiive and old fashioned approach in your final decision and in other minded to notes.
  6. The core participants do not want this important inquiry to be presided over by someone who is both naiive and old fashioned and does not understand the world that they or the police inhabit.    They have no confidence in the prospect of the inquiry properly probing or understanding the evidence.
  7. Those CPs who have expressed a view therefore ask you to recuse yourself from his inquiry or that you ensure that you sit as a true Panel bringing on board, others who well understand the critical issues that shape and frame this inquiry.

Not permanent walk out 

  1. As matters standthose clients who have given instructions (as you know many do not actively participate) are not prepared to continue their participation in today’s hearing.  I am instructed therefore to withdraw from this hearing while these issues are considered by you.

 

Blacklist Support Group

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

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNcgrNs6pB8

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

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

 

RELATED NEWS

Archives