Blacklists and Black Sheep
| Author | Keith Soothill |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2010.83.1.483 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
KEITH SOOTHILL
Emeritus Professor of Social Research at Lancaster University
BLACKLISTS AND BLACK SHEEP
Policing the activities that are borderline between being crim-
inal and non-criminal are complex. Other enforcement
agencies, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and
the Office of Fair Trading, often become involved. The recent
revelation of a secret blacklist of 3,200 construction workers
detailing their trade union activities and past employment
conduct is an example. This article considers the reactions to
such practices. It asks why firms should decide to have
recourse to a blacklist and whether it is symptomatic of a wider
malaise in terms of a lack of communication. The article
suggests that whistle-blowers are the best protection for both
workers and the public when statutory inspection and enforce-
ment fails.
Keywords: blacklist; information commissioners; Office of
Fair Trading; whistle-blowing; white-collar offenders
Traditionally, the police have had difficulties in policing the
activities that seem to be on the borderline between being
criminal and non-criminal. Policing protest is one such area –
what is acceptable and what is not? Activities involving bona
fide companies and trade unions are another. Recently, what is
tantamount to police work by the Information Commissioner’s
Office (ICO), which is responsible for regulating and enforcing
the access to and use of personal information, and the Office of
Fair Trading, whose mission is to make markets work well for
consumers, portrays an increasingly complex world.
The revelation by the information commissioner last year
that 66-year-old Ian Kerr, trading under the name of The
Consulting Association, had constructed and maintained a secret
blacklist of 3,200 construction workers detailing their trade
union activities and past employment conduct, was certainly
disturbing news. The commissioner listed 40 companies which
had at some point made payment to Kerr. The commissioner
believed that the companies paid Kerr a flat fee of £3,000 a year
and then a fixed fee for each name they wanted checked. The
extent of the practice is difficult to gauge from newspaper
reports. Most companies did not wish to comment, whilst others
tried to distance themselves from the allegations claiming that
Kerr’s services had never been used for blacklisting or that the
The Police Journal, Volume 83 (2010) 5
DOI: 10.1358/pojo.2010.83.1.483
To continue reading
Request your trial