London Metropolitan Police admits role in blacklisting construction workers(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
London Metropolitan Police admits role in blacklisting construction workers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728
7 comments
> That's the Mark Jenner who also spent years having a relationship with the environmental activists he was spying on.
It reminds me of a story about, after the 2015 terrorist attacks in France, a police group was created to infiltrate and spy on racists and anti-muslims hate groups. In one occasion, all the members were the cops...
It reminds me of a story about, after the 2015 terrorist attacks in France, a police group was created to infiltrate and spy on racists and anti-muslims hate groups. In one occasion, all the members were the cops...
On a similar note, the UK's longest ever trial[1] was a libel case about a leaflet that was discovered, 16 years later, to have been co-written by an undercover cop. One of the defendents unwittingly had a two year relationship with another undercover cop.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
I missed that detail when it came out! The whole thing was an extraordinary business.
>In one occasion, all the members were the cops...
Were those cops also undercover agents or genuine members?
Were those cops also undercover agents or genuine members?
I wasn't clear, all the cops were part of the same police group, working undercover to foil any racist/anti-muslim attack.
Well, after it was discovered, of course they would all have been undercover... even if they weren’t before, so to speak.
> This is another one of those stories that ought to be shocking but is unlikely to move the dial.
No. This is an outrage and the British people will rightly be outraged. The effects of this will and should be felt in the next election and beyond. Your sophisticated world-weary cynicism is counterproductive.
No. This is an outrage and the British people will rightly be outraged. The effects of this will and should be felt in the next election and beyond. Your sophisticated world-weary cynicism is counterproductive.
I'd like to be wrong, but I suspect that outside of people who are already in the labour movement, nobody will be talking about this next week let alone the next election. How much of a role did SDS play at the last election, when that was already known about?
It's been ""known"" for years that Special Branch helped murder people in Northern Ireland, and outside the republican community and the small subset of mainland "left" that pays attention, it makes no difference.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/how...
(Far too many of the "british people" read rightwing press outlets which will minimise this and some other issue, probably Brexit, to rile up their readers to demand more not less authoritarianism)
It's been ""known"" for years that Special Branch helped murder people in Northern Ireland, and outside the republican community and the small subset of mainland "left" that pays attention, it makes no difference.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/how...
(Far too many of the "british people" read rightwing press outlets which will minimise this and some other issue, probably Brexit, to rile up their readers to demand more not less authoritarianism)
The same police were doing the same things when Labour was in government. Also, Labour this time around want more money for the police, and we wouldn't really call Labour anti authoritarian, would we?
"The government always wins the election" is a very typical British saying and quite true.
"The government always wins the election" is a very typical British saying and quite true.
I don't know what fantasy land you live in but it isn't the UK.
Almost nobody will give a shit.
Those that do won't remember come election time.
Almost nobody will give a shit.
Those that do won't remember come election time.
How will they be felt in the election, given the subject? The political group it was on behalf of has repaid the police by slashing police budgets and reducing their numbers, so we are currently in the position where the left wing are the party claiming to represent the police and are promising a rapid increase in police numbers, so they are unlikely to want to rock the boat too much against them politically at the moment, as that would muddy the messaging they are trying to get out.
Briton here. The vast majority of people will not care at all.
I object to the term 'cynicism'. Inductive reasoning, maybe. There's nothing inherent in the definition of a British person that necessarily includes apathy towards current affairs.
But most swans are white, there's nothing cynical about that, and similarly I say with no cynicism that most British people forgot about this five minutes after hearing/reading about it, if they heard or read about it at all.
I object to the term 'cynicism'. Inductive reasoning, maybe. There's nothing inherent in the definition of a British person that necessarily includes apathy towards current affairs.
But most swans are white, there's nothing cynical about that, and similarly I say with no cynicism that most British people forgot about this five minutes after hearing/reading about it, if they heard or read about it at all.
The British people rarely express outrage at this kind of thing.
Yeah, I'm not really sure about that. I'm pretty politically engaged and I barely give a shit about this, considering the current clusterfuck that is politics in Britain.
Are there any countries in the world where politics is not like this?
Any?
Any?
Switzerland is resolutely boring and mostly has problems relating to "where do we keep all this foreign money". Germany seems to be doing well at the moment; I'd also list the Netherlands and the scandiavian countries as generally more sensible.
The option of "bonkers, but in a completely different way" politics is available in France, Belgium and Italy. You can also have "corrupt but extremely safe for the general public" in Singapore and Japan.
The option of "bonkers, but in a completely different way" politics is available in France, Belgium and Italy. You can also have "corrupt but extremely safe for the general public" in Singapore and Japan.
Should, perhaps, but as a Brit my reaction was just a complete lack of surprise. I'd be shocked if most people even remember this in a few month's time, if they care at all. I also can't see it billowing out in the election - the misdeeds of the police aren't necessarily translated onto the government, and a lot of people will have bigger things to worry about come election time.
>The effects of this will and should be felt in the next election and beyond.
Should? Yes. Will? No.
>Your sophisticated world-weary cynicism is counterproductive
Painfully naive idealism isn't any different. You have to work with reality, not deny it.
Should? Yes. Will? No.
>Your sophisticated world-weary cynicism is counterproductive
Painfully naive idealism isn't any different. You have to work with reality, not deny it.
This won't happen. If you're a wagering man, i'll happily take the other side of a bet about it.
You obviously don't know the British.
This is a product of monarchy, and going to your parliment won't fix it.
Monarchy no, privilege yes. And of course the rightwing press.
> Special Branch enjoy secrecy and closeness to power
Yeah, but they operate in secret, which means there can't be any transparency, because that would reveal their operations and whatnot, and we wouldn't want that. Also, they're "just doing their jobs."
Literally what all short-sighted surveillance defenders always say in such cases.
Yeah, but they operate in secret, which means there can't be any transparency, because that would reveal their operations and whatnot, and we wouldn't want that. Also, they're "just doing their jobs."
Literally what all short-sighted surveillance defenders always say in such cases.
[deleted]
> Oh, and disrupting the possibility of effective union action has been a priority of the government since the days of Thatcher
Long before that, but Mags is a popular person from recent memory to demonize, like her counterpart across the pond, Ron.
Long before that, but Mags is a popular person from recent memory to demonize, like her counterpart across the pond, Ron.
Apparently this was on the BBC front page this morning, but somehow I blinked and missed it.
I don't have any trade union axe to grind, but I'm pretty shocked both by the security services behaviour, and by the lack of coverage this is getting.
Whatever your opinion on trade unions, it's a pretty fundamental threat to democracy when the security services monitor legal behaviour and can destroy someone's livelihood for behaviour they disapprove of.
And .. why isn't this on the BBC News front page all day? I get most of my news there, and now I worry how many other democracy-shaking stories I might have missed.
I don't have any trade union axe to grind, but I'm pretty shocked both by the security services behaviour, and by the lack of coverage this is getting.
Whatever your opinion on trade unions, it's a pretty fundamental threat to democracy when the security services monitor legal behaviour and can destroy someone's livelihood for behaviour they disapprove of.
And .. why isn't this on the BBC News front page all day? I get most of my news there, and now I worry how many other democracy-shaking stories I might have missed.
The BBC is notoriously biased for the government. I stopped reading anything from them after their appalling coverage of the Snowden revelations.
Same with me, I also stopped trusting BBC news after Snowden, it shockingly revealled their heavy establishment bias.
More details on why this was appalling, please.
Factually wrong in many cases, always in the government's favour. Very biased language and framing. Many things not reported at all, or reported very late.
The first few results from search are pretty indicative: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24464286 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24486649 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-24454918/ex-gchq-chief-nobod...
The first few results from search are pretty indicative: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24464286 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24486649 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-24454918/ex-gchq-chief-nobod...
bbc.gov.uk
[deleted]
The BBC is a Statutory corporation run also by Royal Charter.
Oh, and my original title made clear, although the BBC title which HN has now imposed did not: this was done by Special Branch.
Special Branch are the police arm of the UK domestic security services, not the kind of neighbourhood police implied by the name "Metropolitan Police"
Special Branch are the police arm of the UK domestic security services, not the kind of neighbourhood police implied by the name "Metropolitan Police"
> not the kind of neighbourhood police implied by the name "Metropolitan Police"
Where 'neighbourhood' is the largest and capital city, and 'police' is the largest force in the country.
Where 'neighbourhood' is the largest and capital city, and 'police' is the largest force in the country.
Largest, capital, and most surveilled! I know Europeans often talk about discomfort with US police - their prevalence and armament, mostly - but London in turn never ceases to shock me with the sheer density of cameras. The Metropolitan Police have never felt even a bit 'neighborhood' to me.
Considering some of them seem to patrol tube stations at rush hour with MP5 sub machine guns they aren't exactly warm and cuddly friendly police either.
Fact is in a busy station on a morning even if you knew someone was a terrorist and could see him you couldn't actually shoot him without gunning down about 30 civilians between you and the bad guy. An MP5's on display is a show of force against the populace not a reassuring sign of protection.
Fact is in a busy station on a morning even if you knew someone was a terrorist and could see him you couldn't actually shoot him without gunning down about 30 civilians between you and the bad guy. An MP5's on display is a show of force against the populace not a reassuring sign of protection.
> Fact is in a busy station on a morning even if you knew someone was a terrorist and could see him you couldn't actually shoot him without gunning down about 30 civilians between you and the bad guy.
The Met use the MP5SF (Single-fire) variant (routinely anyway - I'd imagine they have access to other weapons for specific situations), so it isn't necessarily accurate to refer to it as an SMG. It'd take serious misuse of such a weapon to end up gunning down 30 civilians.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/28/met-armed-police-...
The Met use the MP5SF (Single-fire) variant (routinely anyway - I'd imagine they have access to other weapons for specific situations), so it isn't necessarily accurate to refer to it as an SMG. It'd take serious misuse of such a weapon to end up gunning down 30 civilians.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/28/met-armed-police-...
[deleted]
FWIW, it was one of the main stories on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning, which means it reached a very large number of people. And it's linked on both the England and Politics index pages, albeit top story on neither.
It's not on the BBC News England page now (8 hours after story was posted in the early morning UK time). I did find it, as you say on the Politics page, and yes it was one of the smaller headlines with the title "Police admit role in blacklisting workers".
Nothing to imply the security services were involved or that there was a risk to our democracy, sounds more like they keep a list of people who do a bad job painting police stations.
I would go to the politics page if I wanted to follow the twists and turns of UK politics. I wouldn't expect to have to go there to find out something so serious.
I guess I'm going to have to look again at where I get my news. The Today programme is very good, but I can't scan it like I can a webpage, so I don't listen often.
Nothing to imply the security services were involved or that there was a risk to our democracy, sounds more like they keep a list of people who do a bad job painting police stations.
I would go to the politics page if I wanted to follow the twists and turns of UK politics. I wouldn't expect to have to go there to find out something so serious.
I guess I'm going to have to look again at where I get my news. The Today programme is very good, but I can't scan it like I can a webpage, so I don't listen often.
I'm honestly glad that this sorry state of affairs is cause for you to openly question a major source of your media consumption.
I'd really encourage you to not stop there and discover for yourself, by your own words, the plethora of "democracy-shaking stories" you have indeed missed from the BBC.
Personally I use the British Brain-washing Corporation (and other news outlets) as a way of orientating what narratives are being spun to the public, and what narratives not to pay attention to.
I'd really encourage you to not stop there and discover for yourself, by your own words, the plethora of "democracy-shaking stories" you have indeed missed from the BBC.
Personally I use the British Brain-washing Corporation (and other news outlets) as a way of orientating what narratives are being spun to the public, and what narratives not to pay attention to.
>why isn't this on the BBC News front page all day?
I remember this clip of Trump boasting of oppressing someone[1] and wondered why the media didn't grab a stronger hold of it.
1-https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/07/513976112...
I remember this clip of Trump boasting of oppressing someone[1] and wondered why the media didn't grab a stronger hold of it.
1-https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/07/513976112...
'Trump says bad thing' is almost not even news anymore. You'd have to have a daily quote or something. Stick it next to the weather.
Some things are worse than others.
In my mind, the only worse thing he could have said was that he would have him quartered, drawn and hanged.
In my mind, the only worse thing he could have said was that he would have him quartered, drawn and hanged.
Part of why Trump was elected is his lack of filter. He says what is on his mind, he’s not afraid of being politically incorrect, and he’s a sarcastic motherfucker.
The next few years will show us one way or the other, with North Korea, with China, with Iran, with Mexico, with Israel/Palestinians whether a guy who doesn’t act “Presidential” can make big things happen for the USA.
The tax cuts were enormous. We’ll see how the tariffs work out but even Schumer is congratulating Trump for them. I think NK could work out pretty well too.
When Trump makes politically incorrect jokes to either get his point across, or to rattle his opponents, I think it only advances his agenda when media insist on taking a literal interpretation.
MET Police special forces infiltrate unions and blacklist workers is “real” news. Taking a joke Trump makes and quoting it like a serious statement of intention, like “Trump says we should try out China’s Xi-style ‘President for life’” is what we call fake news.
Just like Trump joking “maybe Russia can recover those 30,000 emails Hillary deleted” the people who vote for Trump laugh and get the point — the obvious crime that gets ignored - while Trump haters consider the statement an actual endorsement. It’s nothing more than a Rorschach test.
The next few years will show us one way or the other, with North Korea, with China, with Iran, with Mexico, with Israel/Palestinians whether a guy who doesn’t act “Presidential” can make big things happen for the USA.
The tax cuts were enormous. We’ll see how the tariffs work out but even Schumer is congratulating Trump for them. I think NK could work out pretty well too.
When Trump makes politically incorrect jokes to either get his point across, or to rattle his opponents, I think it only advances his agenda when media insist on taking a literal interpretation.
MET Police special forces infiltrate unions and blacklist workers is “real” news. Taking a joke Trump makes and quoting it like a serious statement of intention, like “Trump says we should try out China’s Xi-style ‘President for life’” is what we call fake news.
Just like Trump joking “maybe Russia can recover those 30,000 emails Hillary deleted” the people who vote for Trump laugh and get the point — the obvious crime that gets ignored - while Trump haters consider the statement an actual endorsement. It’s nothing more than a Rorschach test.
He says a lot of politically incorrect and stupid stuff. But here, he didn't say something politically incorrect. He literally said he was going to oppress someone.
Sure, but the point is that Trump is an effective mud monster... 'dirt' doesn't stick on him because imho, his voter base knows he is a mud monster and only care if he is effective or not.
Take the whole Trump cheating on his wife with a porn star and now a Penthouse Pet of the year. His voter base has barely blinked.
Personally I think Trump knows exactly what he is doing when he says and does certain things that cause his political opponents to waste their time and energy being outraged.
He's controlling the news cycle and the media is playing right into it.
Take the whole Trump cheating on his wife with a porn star and now a Penthouse Pet of the year. His voter base has barely blinked.
Personally I think Trump knows exactly what he is doing when he says and does certain things that cause his political opponents to waste their time and energy being outraged.
He's controlling the news cycle and the media is playing right into it.
Ok, but the point I was trying to make has been completely lost here.
If the London metro police chief cheats on his wife that is one thing. If he plots to use his power granted to him by the public to oppress someone, anyone, that is very bad.
If the London metro police chief cheats on his wife that is one thing. If he plots to use his power granted to him by the public to oppress someone, anyone, that is very bad.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think one of the biggest problems with the UK is that is has no single constitution... when you study for the 'Life in the UK' test the study material clearly state that the UK's constitution is the various institutions of Government. I think this always leads to corruption because there is no definitive document that clearly spells out what rights a citizen has. Like the right to bear arms or not, the US constitution was a masterstroke of genius by the American forefounders because it clearly spells out the minimum rights an American citizen has from the state. Seen through the lens of limiting the power of the state, is it any wonder why the right to bear arms is the second amendment right after the right to free speech? I'm sure they knew you have no rights if you can't defend them.
As for the UK, I have no idea how it can reform, or even if it can, its institutionalised propensity for corruption. The only way freedom and rights are wrestled out of the hands of the state is through willingness to die for it. Catalan is a great recent example, collectively there is a want for succession from the Spanish crown, but an unwillingness to die for it... and that is precisely why I don't think they will ever get it.
Similarly, I don't see the British public at large rising up... they are too placated and do not the means to do so. It might seem shocking but in the UK there is no right to freedom of speech.
As for the UK, I have no idea how it can reform, or even if it can, its institutionalised propensity for corruption. The only way freedom and rights are wrestled out of the hands of the state is through willingness to die for it. Catalan is a great recent example, collectively there is a want for succession from the Spanish crown, but an unwillingness to die for it... and that is precisely why I don't think they will ever get it.
Similarly, I don't see the British public at large rising up... they are too placated and do not the means to do so. It might seem shocking but in the UK there is no right to freedom of speech.
[deleted]
> It uncovered a list of more than 3,000 workers - which in some instances also included details of personal relationships and their political activity as well as their trade union links on building sites
This is what I think the average person doesn't understand about pervasive surveillance. This is the kind of shit that it causes. When the government has to know who you're sleeping with, where or whether you pray, who you associate with, etc., it always ends up with this kind of shit. Usually worse.
This is what I think the average person doesn't understand about pervasive surveillance. This is the kind of shit that it causes. When the government has to know who you're sleeping with, where or whether you pray, who you associate with, etc., it always ends up with this kind of shit. Usually worse.
Eventually, much worse. When civil rights are squandered now, they are squandered for those to come as well. The converse is also the case.
Worth also noting - there are strong signs that this blacklisting is still continuing, despite the court cases (although not necessarily with involvement from the police) - https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/blacklistin...
They were blacklisted because they were organized?
Aren't almost all construction workers organized?
Aren't almost all construction workers organized?
No, since most construction companies in the UK do not directly employ construction personnel. Many work indirectly though employment agencies or as 'self-employed' sub-contractors.
The blacklist is a legacy of different times when this wasn't so.
The blacklist is a legacy of different times when this wasn't so.
Just moved from London to the continent because of Brexit. And it's amazing how quickly I stopped giving a damn about stories like this one since the move. I pity the victims though.
>"We were told, things like that don't happen here."
The perfect epitaph for Western Civilization.
The perfect epitaph for Western Civilization.
While the UK police are generally not that corrupt, Special Branch enjoy secrecy and closeness to power, which they interpret as a license to commit crimes against leftwing groups they consider anti-government. There's a long history of this from complicity in murders in Northern Ireland to present day highly intrusive surveillance against demonstrators.
> Evidence given to Parliament suggested that one undercover officer who infiltrated Mr Smith's union was Mark "Cassidy" Jenner, a member of Scotland Yard's now disbanded Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).
That's the Mark Jenner who also spent years having a relationship with the environmental activists he was spying on, the subject of a separate set of court cases and inquiries.
See also Hillsborough and the Miner's Strike.
(Oh, and disrupting the possibility of effective union action has been a priority of the government since the days of Thatcher)