Wednesday, 18 December 2013


Please read the following three posts first:



Confirmation now received from the Business Department that if you write to your MP concerned about being blacklisted, then you'll receive the same standard template response as everyone else.

B.I.S. LETTER 13 DEC 2013 (Pg1) 

B.I.S. LETTER 13 DEC 2013 (Pg2) 

This paragraph is farcical, as Jo Swinson sends out the same standard template letter to Vince Cable who is also sending these out to MP's to forward on to their constituents.

"Where a response is sent from a Minister, they must personally consider and sign it, to ensure that each response does properly address the concerns raised".

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah right!

Sunday, 15 December 2013


I've just been accused of costing Stuart Wallis (ex National Labour Manager at SPIE/Matthew Hall) his job by his brother in a Facebook post.

Stuart's LinkedIn profile reveals that he is no longer with the company.

Stuart was the National Labour Manager referred to in the following post from August.


An internet search also reveals that Stuart himself was involved in a ballot rigging scandal in 2002 whist working at Amicus before it merged into Unite. This is detailed in this article in the Guardian:


Hopefully Stuart will now come forward and explain everything he knows about the blacklisting to the select committee and Bruce Carr's team.

Wednesday, 20 November 2013


So David Cameron has launched an inquiry into the trade unions and the blacklisting. This is long overdue.

I don't need to go over old ground, as everything they need to know about Unite covering up the blacklisting back in 2005/2006 to protect their financial arrangements with the construction companies is detailed on this website.

There is more to come following a recent SAR data protection act  request by me to Unite.

One thing that has stood out to me is the appointment of Bruce Carr QC to head up this inquiry.

Carr is from Devereux Chambers, who also house ex 'Director of Legal Services' at Unite, Georgina Hirsch as a Barrister.


I'll save what I have linking Hirsch to Derek Simpson for the inquiry, but have raised the point about a possible conflict of interests to the Chambers and the powers that be.

All may be fine with this business relationship between the two barristers, but I'm just throwing this out there as it would be a pity if this inquiry was delayed any further by a legal technicality.

Thursday, 14 November 2013


In parts 1 and 2 we establish that Jo Swinson and Vince Cable are simply banging out identical template response letters to constituents who've raised legitimate concerns about being blacklisted via their MP's.

This is disturbing, but what is even more disturbing is that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills hold large amounts of hard copy material off site in relation to the Blacklisting that will never be searched, as they have an exemption under Section 12.

Section 12 - Buried For Ever

The following document is a response from the department to FOI request 13/0549. I do not know the source.

FOI 13/0549 (Pg1)

FOI 13/0549 (Pg2)

On page 2 they respond by saying:

"Some years ago the then officials working on this and similar policy stored large amounts of data off-site which covers the period".

They then go on to cite Section 12 as their reason for not searching through and providing information from this.

What this means is that this large amount of hard copy information stored off site is buried for ever.

It's as simple as that, as any request for any document held in this "stored large amount of hard copy data" would result in them having to search the entire stash. This provides them with an exemption under 'Section 12' as it would cost more than the 'one person taking 3.5 days' as stated in their response to 13/0549 and most probably every other FOI response.

Therefore, buried for ever.

Section 35(1)(a) - Buried For Ever

Another exemption being used and detailed on page 2 of this FOI request is titled the 'Formation of Government Policy'.

What this means is that the department can decide to withhold anything they like without providing any explanation or reason.


So what is the point of having a Freedom of Information Act when a Government department like this can bury so much data? 

Monday, 11 November 2013


In the previous post I've demonstrated the farcical process of template politics by Vince Cable and Jo Swinson at the Department of Business Innovation & Skills.

They have both quite simply been processing identical template response letters to legitimate correspondence from constituents who had raised concerns about being blacklisted via their MP's.

This is how it works

1. Constituents raise concerns about blacklisting with their MP's.

2. The MP's communicate these concerns to Government Ministers and in one of the examples provided, The Home Secretary, Theresa May.

3. Vince Cable and Jo Swinson respond with identical template response letters.

4. The MP's forward the identical template response letters to their constituents.

5. End of story...

I've provided 15 - 20 cross party examples from a selection of MP's including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne who all received the exact same template response letter from either Cable or Swinson.

Swinson to Cable - Template Letter

What's even more disturbing and deserved of it's very own post here is that on 12 February 2013, Swinson writes to Cable using the very same identical template response letter they'd both been sending out to MP's.



Cable had received an email from a constituent on the evening of 23 January 2013 following the debate in the House that afternoon.


This was forwarded to Cable at the Department for Business Innovation & Skills on 24 January 2013 and Swinson responds to Cable with the standard template response letter on 12 February 2013.

You just couldn't make this stuff up.


I recently posted that I'd received a response from the Business Department (BIS) to my FOI and SAR requests and felt that some of the information was quite disturbing. It's therefore taken a couple of weeks to digest and understand.

Firstly they waited until 4pm on the deadline date to inform me of the following:

"We are unable to answer your request without exceeding the cost limit of 600 pounds under s12, but have provided some information that the department has previously disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act".

"You may wish to refine your request by narrowing down its scope and being more specific about what information you particularly wish to obtain".

I have now replied and narrowed down the scope of my request, but a number of things did stand out from the information provided which I'll publish in separate posts.

Template Politics

The first was that many politicians have raised concerns about blacklisting to the BIS on behalf of their constituents, only to receive a standard template letter back from either Vince Cable or Jo Swinson.

This appears to be no more than a political administrative Merry-Go-Round, and those raising the concerns on behalf of their constituents appear to just accept this template letter and take no further action.



I'll detail fifteen or so cross party examples from earlier this year:

1. Concern raised: Julie Hilling MP to Theresa May
Template response: Jo Swinson to Julie Hilling

2. Concern raised: George Osborne MP to Jo Swinson
Template response: Jo Swinson to George Osborne

In this example, George Osborne raises concerns from his constituents about blacklisting in the entertainment industry. He too gets the template letter from Jo Swinson in which she adds "in the entertainment industry" to the wording.



3. Concern raised: Sir Bob Russell MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Sir Bob Russell

4. Concern raised: John Hayes MP to Theresa May
Template response: Jo Swinson to John Hayes

5. Concern raised: Rosie Cooper MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Rosie Cooper

6. Concern raised: David Laws MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Vince Cable to David Laws

7. Concern raised: Chris Heaton MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Chris Heaton

8. Concern raised: Nicola Blackwood MP to Jo Swinson
Template response: Jo Swinson to Nicola Blackwood

9. Concern raised: Peter Bone MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Peter Bone

10. Concern raised: Paul Burstow MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Paul Burstow

11. Concern raised: Simon Wright MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Simon Wright

12. Concern raised: Bill Wiggin MP to Lord McNally
Template response: Jo Swinson to Bill Wiggin

13. Concern raised: Menzies Campbell MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Vince Cable to Menzies Campbell

14. Concern raised: Tom Brake MP to Vince Cable
Template response: Jo Swinson to Tom Brake

15. Concern raised: Geraint Davies MP to Iain Duncan Smith
Template response: Jo Swinson to Geraint Davies

Geraint Davies receives the very same standard template letter on four separate occasions on the 11th, 13th, 15th and 22nd February 2013.

It just goes on and on...

Andrew Tyrie to Jo Swinson, Mike Penning to Jo Swinson, Malcolm Rifkind to Vince Cable, David Milliband to Vince Cable, Mike Hancock to Iain Duncan Smith...


This disturbs me as it raises the question as to whether many of our politicians really care about the issues we raise, or are they just happy to accept and process the administrative political merry-go-round identified above?

I think my own MP, David Hanson summed this up in his letter to Jack Straw in 2009 in which he asks him to provide:

"A response suitable to pass on to my constituent".


Monday, 28 October 2013


Let's clear up the speculation following this letter from David Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO to Ian Davidson, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.


First stop is a look at how Blacklist Support Group spokesperson, Dave Smith and the people he's feeding information to are reporting this.

Fact: The Blacklist Support Group do not represent or speak for all blacklisted workers as they try to aver. Only 400 of the 3,200 blacklisted workers are currently aware they have a blacklist file, of which approximately 100 are represented by Guney Clark Ryan and a similar number by the GMB union.

Dave Smith - Blacklist Support Group

"The Information Commissioners Office has confirmed that they hold documents relating to another blacklist in the construction industry. The confirmation comes in a letter to Ian Davidson MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee investigation into blacklisting from ICO Deputy Commissioner David Smith (attached)."

"The possible existence of this new blacklist (separate to the Consulting Association blacklist currently in the news) was originally raised by whistleblower Alan Wainwright during evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in November 2012".

"The ICO seem to be suddenly remembering lots of things they haven't mentioned before in the press or to MP's".

Chloe Stothart - Construction News

"Second construction blacklist revealed by data watchdog".

"The Information Commissioner's office has confirmed that there was a second construction industry blacklist believed to cover 500 construction workers".

Will Hurst - Building Magazine

"Watchdog confirms second industry blacklist".

"The existence of a second construction industry blacklist, understood to contain as many as 500 names, has been confirmed by the industry watchdog".

The Facts

1. My tribunal witness statement.

I'm not sure if the ICO are referring to my witness statement from 2006 for my own tribunal or my witness statement for the 'Acheson & Others v Logic Controls Ltd' tribunal from January 2007.

Either way there is nothing new here, as both have been in the public domain since 2006/2007.

Also published on this website in March 2009.

2. Faxes to and from Haden Young (from Haden Young Tamworth to Haden Young Watford).

Nothing new here too, as these have also been in the public domain since 2006.

They have also been in the possession of senior trade union officials and the General Secretary of Amicus/Unite since 2005/2006 and Bernard Carter at the Business Department since January 2007.  

Also published on this website in March 2009.

3. A list of nine contact names and addresses of what appear to be individual managers within different construction companies.

I don't have a copy of this information, so cannot comment.

4. A small sample of names and national insurance numbers of individual construction workers (Pfizer, Royal Opera House and Jubilee Line).

Again nothing new here. 

The full list was first published on my first website in 2006. Also provided to senior trade union officials and the General Secretary at Amicus/Unite in 2005/2006, and Bernard Carter at the Business Department in January 2007.

Also published on this website in March 2009.


This information is not a new blacklist and was not originally raised by me in my evidence to the select committee on November 2012. 

It was originally raised by me as far back as 2005/2006 with senior trade union officials and the then General Secretary of Amicus/Unite, but they buried this.

It was originally raised by me as part of my evidence to my tribunal in November 2006, where Directors from Haden Young lied under oath.

It was originally raised by me in January 2007 with Bernard Carter, the most senior civil servant in the country responsible for protecting trade union rights.

The 500 List

What we do now know about this list of 500 workers from the Pfizer, Royal Opera House and Jubilee Line projects is that some of these workers made it onto The Consulting Association database.

According to Sheila Knight, Ian Coates joined Emcor Drake & Scull from Haden Young after I left and managed their relationship with the Consulting Association.

To the best of my knowledge, Frank Morris was not one of these workers who made it from the '500 list' onto the CA database.

You can read all about Frank and Crossrail on this website here:



So my advice for what it's worth is beware of idiots running around shouting "new blacklist", "new blacklist" to whoever will listen.

The covert blacklisting of construction workers would most certainly still be prevalent in the UK construction industry had David Clancy at the ICO not acted on my evidence in August 2008 and I simply cannot understand the motives of some of the people who are trying to discredit him.

As David Smith from the ICO states in his letter. "This is not information that we seized from the Consulting Association. Rather it is the information that we provided to the court to support our application for a no notice search warrant for access to the premises of Haden Young Ltd in August 2008".

It was this evidence that enabled the ICO to locate and shut down Ian Kerr and the Consulting Association. 

Deluded Fantasy

In addition to the many exaggerated claims made by Dave Smith and others from the BSG over the last few years, another founder member of the Blacklist Support Group, Michael Dooley is posting on the Facebook page today (29 October 2013) that he has a list of 400 names, addresses and full details of activities of sparks who worked on the Royal Opera House, Jubilee Line and Pfizers projects.

He says Rob Evans from The Guardian put him onto it and that he's sure he downloaded it from this website.

Pure deluded fantasy.

I'd love to see this, which would possibly represent a 'new blacklist'. I've spoken to Dooley on numerous occasions and even met up with him, but on each occasion he's made claims and promised to send me supporting evidence but nothing has ever transpired.

And herein lies the danger when you have a small group of people like this making exaggerated claims purporting to represent a group of people who are as yet, largely unidentified.

On a final note, I recently stated to Chloe Stothart that I don't talk to journalists. This is not true. I've provided information to many journalists, including Anna Meisel for her Radio 4 programme and Claire Burnett for her Panorama film. 

What I should have said is that I don't talk to journalists who have absolutely no interest in reporting the true facts in this scandal.

It's all on this website.


The Business Department did respond to my requests on 24 October 2013 and I'll need some time to evaluate everything as there's quite a lot to get through.

One word sums up an initial brief look through this:


I'd be happy to discuss FOI requests 13/0549 and 13/0550 with the applicants if they would like to make themselves known.

Thursday, 24 October 2013


I would suggest those reading this blog for the first time read this interview with The Guardian to get an overview of the issue.


Friday, 18 October 2013


Should bring the start of the release of information held on me by the Business Department, so we should start to learn more about what the previous Labour Government did with my blacklisting evidence and disclosure back in January 2007.

Freedom of Information Act request deadline: 24 October 2013

Data Protection Act request deadline: 5 November 2013


For your kind messages of support.

Thursday, 17 October 2013


Ian Davidson MP made the following statement yesterday in Westminster:

"We do recognize now that there has to be legal changes".

"I mean the Crossrail example, where it has been conceded that there was blacklisting on Crossrail, yet the law on blacklisting was not broken".

This can be viewed at 15:32 here:


I had no idea this had now been conceded by Crossrail. 

Has it?

Wednesday, 16 October 2013


Updated: 19 October 2013

There is currently lots of debate about the potential involvement of the police and security services in the blacklisting and I may have some information that can assist those investigating this.

I was originally employed by Carillion in 1993 to set up and manage an internal recruitment agency (NCS M&E) to recruit and supply mechanical and electrical operatives to their projects. 

The internal construction trades agency, NCS (Postworth Limited) was already fully functional within the business under Sandy Palmer and NCS M&E's main objective was to target the business going to external recruitment agencies supplying to Crown House Engineering, thus retaining recruitment control and improving internal profit.

Crown House Engineering were using in the region of 250-400 external temporary agency workers each week at the time, all recruited locally by the site project teams with recruitment agencies of their choice. So with an approximate 80-100 pounds profit per external agency worker timesheet, there was the potential to recover up to 25,000 pounds per week for NCS M&E and the Carillion business in general.

The vast majority of Crown House staff accepted this change as it made perfect common sense. Within two years the NCS M&E business was recruiting and supplying in the region of 400 temporary agency workers to Crown House Engineering projects.

There was however one particular Crown House branch (Retford) which resisted this common sense change to the business. They would make all the right noises at meetings about using NCS M&E, but wouldn't give the business any opportunity to provide their temporary labour.

The Private Security Company - Group 4

I was concerned at meeting such rejection from this branch and in particular, a specific project where I'd identified the site team were using a substantial amount of external agency labour. I therefore reported this to my Manager at the time, Roger Robinson, who in turn introduced me to a man called Colin Blythe from within Carillion.

Colin explained that Carillion used the services of an external security company, Group 4, to covertly look into matters like this. He informed me that they were very thorough and that he was sure they could establish why the project team were so reluctant to use the internal agency service.

The Investigation

I'd say that no more than two weeks had passed and Colin was back with results from Group 4.

He informed me that Group 4 had carried out surveillance on the site and project team and that they'd established that the Crown House project engineeer, Charlie Power was using the services of a recruitment agency called Staffhire who were providing in excess of fifty temporary agency workers to the project.

Furthermore, Group 4 had identified that Charlie was in a personal relationship with a female representative from the agency, Nicki Hampson, and if I recall correctly, that they were living together.


To the best of my recollection, this was the only time I was aware of the use of this type of surveillance during my time at Carillion.

The company had engaged a large security company to conduct covert surveillance on members of the project team, which must have extended beyond the boundaries of the project itself to ascertain the more personal elements of the investigation findings.

Was this surveillance service extended to other parts of the business or the construction industry in general? I don't know. But Colin Blythe may. He would certainly have retired by now, but originated from the Middlesbrough area where he lived in a small village on the outskirts at the time. 

Update - 19 October 2013

I have managed to locate and speak to Colin this morning. Colin was unaware of my blacklisting campaign or any of the surrounding events such as the select committee and press coverage. This is therefore something he will need time to research and catch up on in order for him to establish if he can help in any way.

Saturday, 12 October 2013


So The Guardian finally got there, reporting on the Bent Union Officials after all this time. They've known about this for years but wouldn't print a single word against the trade unions that fund their precious Labour Party.


They're still deleting any reference to my website in their Comments section!

Sean Curran from Guney Clark & Ryan:

 "We note that there has been reference to the consultation of Ucatt and Unite in the formulation of the proposed compensation scheme. We express serious concern about the involvement of those organisations."

"We have seen evidence that implicates Amicus (which evolved into Unite) and Ucatt officials in the supply of negative commentary about the suitability of their members for employment."

"That commentary frequently made its way onto the Consulting Association database and was no doubt one of the factors that led to denials of employment."

"It is also worthy of note that those unions refused to support their members in bringing a High Court claim so that they could seek redress for the hardship that they suffered. Many of those that we represent are firm that they object to Unite or Ucatt playing any part in negotiations with the relevant companies for these reasons."

One thing is very clear.

Unite and Ucatt should play no part in any negotiations in respect of compensation for the thousands of blacklisted workers.  

Thursday, 10 October 2013


Eight years of my life battling for this day


Is this the end? 

Not by a long chalk. These people have lied and denied for the last eight years, thus prolonging the suffering of thousands of construction workers.  

So why trust them now?

When I say 'these people', I don't just mean the construction companies. Senior trade union officials buried my evidence as far back as 2005, with one, Micky Tuff from Unite, calling me a "compulsive lair".

I've also recently submitted Freedom of Information and Data Protection Act requests to the Business Department, so we should soon be able to establish more about why the previous Labour Government failed to act on my blacklisting evidence as far back as January 2007. Please see the following BBC News article on this from earlier this year:


Unite are still refusing to provide copies of the letters from their then General Secretary, Derek Simpson from 2006, stating now that they cannot locate them.

The Labour strong select committee are still reluctant to ask Unite one single question about their complicity in all this. Even after the wild goose chase they were set in relation to Crossrail.

There are still so many question unanswered in relation to this scandal, including "Why did Unite and the Labour Party, both who were in full possession of my evidence as far back as 2005 and 2007 respectively want nothing to do with the blacklisting until long after they lost power?".

It's also important to note that Guney Clark Ryan and the GMB are only representing approximately 100 workers each in their High Court claims. As welcome and respected as these claims are, there are still approximately 200 blacklisted workers with their files like myself who these parties could not help and another near 3,000 who do not yet know that they had a Consulting Association blacklist file.


On a final note I must say how impressive and modern the GMB campaign has been. So many trade unionists are still stuck in the 70's, but Justin Bowden and the GMB have demonstrated that trade unions can be modern, creative, constructive and effective if led by the right people. 

They have stood out for me, and after working with Justin on their campaign and claim over the last year or so, I do know they still have a surprise or two in the bag for the many HR Managers and other parties who have just sat back and said nothing over the last few years in the hope this would simply go away.

So we press on... 

Monday, 30 September 2013


Dear Carillion

Please stop telling fibs! 

I'm no liar!


Best regards,

Alan Wainwright 


The GMB contacted me today to inform me that Carillion's lawyers had written to their lawyers basically calling me a liar. Although I doubt the GMB believed them in any way, I was able to provide them with the information needed to disprove the statements made by Carillion.

One of Carillion's claims was that Frank Duggan (named by me as Carillion's main contact with the Consulting Association during my time there) was never a Director of any Carillion company (or words to that effect).

Firstly it's important to remember that Carillion demerged from Tarmac around 1999, so semantics could be at play to some extent. 

Tarmac's construction businesses re-branded to Carillion and the aggregates business was sold on and retained the Tarmac brand. I did mention in my evidence to the select committee that it would be unfair to use the word Tarmac when discussing the blacklisting, as to the best of my knowledge, the aggregates business had nothing to do with it. So we agreed that we would define this business as Carillion, even though it was Tarmac pre 1999.

So back to Frank Duggan. He was most probably never a Director of Carillion, but he was certainly the Director of Personnel for Tarmac during my time there (1993 - 1999) and the main point of contact for all checks with Ian Kerr at the Consulting Association.

The link above confirms that Francis Thomas Duggan was a Director at Markfield (Pension Trustees) Limited (Director of Personnel) from July 1993 to October 1997.

The company was based in Carillion's (Tarmac's) offices in Wolverhampton.

Another notable Director of Markfield during the same period was:


This confirms that Frank Duggan sat on the same board of Directors as Sir Neville Simms during my employment with Carillion.

Frank was also a Director of another Carillion company at the time, Castlecroft Hotel Limited, but I don't want to confuse matters too much by going into too great a detail about this. 

You can view all the other Carillion Directors and the complex weave of companies Carillion owned at the time via a simple Internet search at 

Patrick Eugene McCloskey, Roger William Robinson and John Michael Ball are three other interesting key Carillion Directors involved with labour. The first two being ex Directors of Postworth Limited (Carillion's labour agency NCS). 

John Michael Ball

Is detailed on the following blacklist file of Dave Smith at 2d.

SOURCE 3271 (JB)

Mr Ball has also been a Director of a number of Carillion companies:

Tarmac Pensions Limited

Carillion Pensions Limited

Carillion Quest Trustee Limited

So stick all that in your pipe and smoke it, Carillion lawyers.

Francis Thomas Duggan

So where is he now?

Detailed as retired, but I've tracked him down to a company in Milton Keynes called Fuscha Limited where he's the Company Secretary with a John Patrick Duggan as Director.


There's a telephone number on the website, so any interested parties can contact him direct.

Lies, Lies and More Lies

I'm sure I've demonstrated by now that I'm one of the very few people who has actually told the truth in all this. I have no personal agenda other than to get to the truth and hopefully help myself and the many thousands of blacklisted workers who are not privileged to be part of the Guney Clark Ryan or GMB High Court claims.

I'm used to being called a liar by now. Look at the correspondence from Micky Tuff at Unite in which he calls me a compulsive liar. How the select committee has not asked one single question to Unite about their complicity in all this is beyond me considering the evidence uploaded on this website, but time will tell.

It does appear to be the standard practice in dealing with whistle-blowers and those raising genuine concerns at work. Isolate them and their views so they appear to be the only one making them. If no one else is making them then surely it can't be true. ;-)

There must be so many other people out there struggling to get the truth out about some other abuse of power or human rights. There is quite simply no support whatsoever for whistle-blowers in this country, irrespective of what the PCAW say. There are plenty of bureaucrats sitting around having meetings and discussions, but where is the real help?

So I'd say go find Mr Duggan and get him under oath at the select committee and the GMB High Court case. Let's see what he's got to say for himself under the full spotlight and scrutiny of Messrs Davidson & Co and the GMB Barristers.

I have written to Mr Duggan appealing for him to now come clean on the blacklisting, but I wouldn't hold your breath as he'll probably adopt the standard 'deny everything and throw a shit load of legal at it' approach like the rest of them.

Wednesday, 25 September 2013


So Chuka Umunna promises a "full inquiry" into the blacklisting if Labour get in power. What exactly does he mean by a "full inquiry", as he didn't say a "full public or independent inquiry"?

Would Labour's "full inquiry" investigate why the previous Labour Government and Unite did absolutely nothing with my evidence back in 2006, thus prolonging the suffering of thousands of blacklisted workers?

I somehow doubt it.

This inaction by the Labour party and a major trade union was most accurately reported in this BBC Radio 4 documentary.


Neither the previous Labour Goverment or the trade unions wanted anything to do with the blacklisting until someone somewhere was able to persuade the Scottish Affairs Committee to launch an inquiry in 2012.

And when I say previous Labour Government, I mean right at the top. 

Jack Straw Letter - March 2009

In March 2009 I wrote to my MP, David Hanson (Labour), raising my concerns about the trade unions and the blacklisting. Mr Hanson immediately wrote straight to the then Secretary of State, Jack Straw at the Ministry of Justice, including a printed copy of the 'Introduction' post from this website. This included everything about Unite's involvement in all this and my meeting with Bernard Carter in January 2007.

Does Mr Hanson ask for an explanation, or even an investigation into the serious matters I'm raising? No. He simply asks Straw to "look into this" and provide "A response suitable to pass on to my constituent".


So the Secretary of State is by this time now fully aware that a major trade union that funds his party to the tune of millions each year were in full possession of all my blacklisting evidence as far back as 2005 and did absolutely nothing with it.

He is also now aware that the most senior civil servant in the country in relation to protecting the rights of trade unionists, Bernard Carter is also fully aware of all my evidence as far back as January 2007 and also appears to have done absolutely nothing about this.

So did Jack Straw take any action to investigate these matters following these disclosures?

I somehow doubt it.

It's 2009 and there's an election brewing. An election in which the Labour Party will rely on the trade unions to fund their campaign. 

Pat McFadden was therefore given the task of providing the 'straight bat' response David Hanson had requested.



So would Chuka Umunna's "full inquiry" therefore fully investigate this?

I somehow doubt it.

There has to be a significant reason why all of these now 'so called' interested parties (Labour MP's, senior trade union officials) wanted absolutely nothing to do with the blacklisting until 2012.

Only a full independent public inquiry can get to the bottom of this.

Now I've met with a number of politicians in relation to exposing the blacklisting over the years and can honestly say that Chuka Umunna is by far the most disingenuous I've met.

So let's not trust the smile, or the charm, or the carefully worded statements from Chuka until he and the current Labour Party pledge a 'full independent public inquiry' into the blacklisting.

Only then will we get to the whole truth.

Ed Miliband was very keen to drum home his catchphrases yesterday at the Labour Party Conderence, but will they now change their pledge to the blacklisted workers from a "full inquiry" to a 'full public independent inquiry'?

I somehow doubt it.

Freedom of Information Act Request

I have now submitted requests for information to the Business Department under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts, so let's see what transpires.

Wednesday, 18 September 2013


Carillion have been told that they are no longer welcome at the Labour Party Conference next week after members of its National Executive Committee highlighted the firms blacklisting history.

Their stand will be replaced by a "GMB Blacklisting Information" stand.

Their Chief Executive, Richard Howson continues to insist that their involvement was limited to a subsidiary, Crown House.

This is simply not true. 

I named senior Carillion (previously Tarmac) managers and their HR Director, Frank Duggan in my evidence to the select committee which can be viewed here.


There's plenty more on Carillion and the blacklisting on this site if you care to explore.



Wednesday, 11 September 2013


Did Unite buy the silence of the blacklist support group and Guney Clark Ryan in respect of the High Court claim by providing third party funding?

It's a very simple question and one which I've been trying to raise privately with Sean Curran of GCR and Hugh Tomlinson of Matrix for some time now but they've never returned my calls or responded to the messages I've left.

I quite happily met with Liam Dunne from GCR in April 2012 and spent a few hours answering his questions on the blacklisting for the High Court claim. I've also provided ongoing information and potential evidence to GCR since 2010, but when I now attempt to raise a single question with them following evidence that comes into my possession, they don't even return my calls. 

They have now issued a legal threat toward me for raising this question which I'll deal with later in this post, but for now, let's look at the facts and evidence.

1. Unite buried my evidence as far back as 2005.

2. This deliberate inaction prolonged the start of 'the end of the blacklisting' by some six or seven years (with the commencement of the select committee inquiry), which would most probably still be going on had David Clancy from the ICO not acted on my evidence in August 2008.

Hold on to this thought. If David Clancy from the ICO had not acted on my evidence in 2008, we would most probably have no GCR High Court claim and no select committee inquiry. 

Covert blacklisting would most probably still be prevalent in the UK Construction Industry, as very senior Unite officials who were in possession of all my evidence (no more or less evidence than David Clancy used to locate and expose the Consulting Association back in August 2008) as far back as 2005 did absolutely nothing with it.

3. Senior members of the 'blacklist support group' have publicly broadcast and privately stated to me on many occasions that they have evidence of trade union officials contributing to their consulting association blacklist files. These people like Steve Acheson are key witnesses and claimants in the Guney Clark Ryan High Court claim.

4. An ex-employee of Unite and current senior labour manager in the construction industry has stated that Micky Tuff from Unite was instructed to cover up my blacklisting evidence back in 2005 and that the unions are currently "the only people hell bent on telling us who we should and shouldn't employ". He names ex Unite National Officer, Tom Hardacre as the "Spark's Nemesis" and "the worst for blacklist activity".

5. I was informed by Liam Dunne from Guney Clark Ryan in our meeting in Chester in April 2012 that the evidence against Unite was so concerning that GCR were considering a separate legal claim against the union.

These facts are all supported with evidence all over this website and have never been contested by Unite, the blacklist support group, Guney Clark Ryan or any other party.

So we have all this evidence and dialogue regarding Unite's complicity in the blacklisting, then, all of a sudden, around mid 2012, it all goes quiet. The key members of the blacklist support group suddenly stop broadcasting about the complicity of the trade unions in the blacklisting. Not a peep. From any of them.

Well any of them apart from Michael Dooley who continued to bombard the blacklist support group facebook page with allegation after allegation for months and months until all of a sudden, on 17 May this year, he too posts his very last post.

I spoke to Michael last week, who for the uninformed lost the Ucatt leadership election to Alan Richie in 2009 by 4,500 votes to 6,700. Michael informed me that he had now reached a settlement with Ucatt. So not a peep from him anymore now.

Blacklist Support Group Email - 21 Nov 2011

So in addition to the facts published on this website, let's look at more of the evidence that prompted this very simple question to Guney Clark Ryan.

On 21 November 2011, Dave Smith from the blacklist support group circulated the following email to a selection of people.

BSG EMAIL - 21 NOV 2011 (Pg1) 

BSG EMAIL - 21 NOV 2011 (Pg2)

BSG EMAIL - 21 NOV 2011 (Pg3) 

You can see from the subject line on page 1 that the email has been sent to Liam Dunne and Sean Curran of Guney Clark Ryan for their approval.

The email opens on page 1 with the following statement:

"Steve and Dave from the Blacklist Support Group (BSG) had a meeting with John Townsend & Liam Dunne from Guney Clark and Ryan about the High Court claim last Friday. Here is an update."

Last Friday would be 18 November 2011.

The following statement is made in point 6 on page 2 of the email:

"Role of Unite"

"At the BSG AGM, Gail Cartmail and Howard Beckett from UNITE pledged to support the High Court claim. The level of involvement by UNITE will have to be determined but there is a legal duty upon the solicitors GCR to discuss with UNITE. A possible outcome would be for UNITE to become a 'third party" funder of the claim. This would mean that UNITE could fund aspects of the litigation process (such as time consuming document searches etc..) but GCR would remain working for us as individual clients. We would remain the client and GCR would continue to take instructions from their clients ie: us. This option would also mean that UNITE would not be liable for potential court costs from the blacklisting firms if the High Court claim was unsuccessful."

In the final paragraph on page 3 we read:

"We support the option of UNITE (and hopefully UCATT as well) providing "third party" funding which will greatly speed up the process and would allow the unions to be party to discussions (and can therefore rightly claim that they are supporting their members in the High Court) but the client who has the final say in giving instructions to GCR remain the blacklisted workers themselves."

Blacklist Support Group - AGM - 2011

Now the blacklist support group email of 21 November 2011 refers to the blacklist support group AGM which took place on 29 October 2011.

The following email is from from the blacklist support group dated 3 October 2011 announcing the proposed agenda for the AGM and is 'blind copied' to me.

BSG - AGM 2011 

If you study points 3 and 7 you'll see the following:

"3. High Court claim - a representative of the Guney Clark Ryan legal team will be in attendance."

"7. What are the official unions doing? - UNITE - UCATT - RMT
This bit will be where the collusion issue will be discussed."

Guney Clark Ryan Legal Threat - 10 Sept 2013

Over the last eight years I've simply sought to expose the blacklisting of construction workers and get to the truth in what happened to me and over 3,200 other workers. This has not been easy and has cost me at least sixty thousand pounds.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only blacklisted worker who has turned down an offer of twenty thousand pounds to quietly back down and walk away.
I don't have the unlimited financial and legal resources the construction companies and trade unions have. I don't have the political advisers or mainstream press support the politicians have, and nor do I have the benefit of or can afford any legal support.

I just have me and this website and all I can do is ask questions of and post the evidence in my possession to try to help myself and the other three thousand or so construction workers who are currently either not privileged to be represented by GCR or the GMB or do not yet know that a blacklist file in their name exists.

So after trying to ask Guney Clark Ryan, a company who I've done nothing other than help over the last few years, the simple question I've attempted to ask on numerous occasions over the last few months, I get the following threatening letter following an email to them yesterday, again asking the very same simple question. 

Did Unite buy the silence of the blacklist support group and Guney Clark Ryan in respect of the High Court claim by providing third party funding?

GCR's letter dated 10 September 2013 to me can be viewed here:

GCR LETTER - 10 SEPT 2013 

In this they state the following:

"We can categorically state in open correspondence that neither the UNITE union nor any other union for that matter has provided any third party funding or any insurance in respect of the High Court claim that is currently being brought by this firm."

Now that's fine and I'm happy to publish this as requested, but then they go on to threaten legal action, stating that my comments in their view amount to libel. They demand removal of the 'Coming Soon' post and an apology within 24 hours and threaten an application in the High Court of which they will seek to recover costs from me. They go on to threaten further legal action and threats of more costs etc, etc, etc.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear... 

Guney Clark Ryan threatening a blacklisted worker with legal action and costs for, based on the evidence now published on this website, attempting to ask them a very simple and legitimate question.

As previously mentioned, there would most probably be no Guney Clark Ryan High Court claim or select committee inquiry without my ongoing efforts, sacrifices, website posts and evidence over the last seven or eight years and blacklisting would still most probably be prevalent in the UK construction industry.

I can categorically confirm that I have never had any intention to damage the reputation of Guney Clark Ryan or any of the solicitors who have worked on the case and have simply tried to engage with them on the evidence now published that demonstrates that third party funding by Unite was proposed, discussed and considered.

So my message to Guney Clark Ryan in response to their legal threat is "please do now wind your neck in and let me get on with trying to help myself and the many other blacklisted workers who are not privileged to be part of your High Court claim".

And maybe next time, please also just have the simple courtesy to pick up the phone and return my calls. It's not rocket science...

We're on the same side.

The High Court Claim

To the best of my knowledge, only approximately 400 people from the 3,200 known blacklist files actually know they have a file.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, Guney Clark Ryan are only representing a selection of these (say 100) and the GMB union are representing approximately the same.

So who is representing the other 200 people, who like myself are most probably gasping for air as they drown or have drowned in the financial and emotional debt caused by the backlisting?

The answer is most probably no one! 

Legal Threats

On the subject of legal threats, the question still needs to be asked as to why key founder members of the blacklist support group, all who have been very vocal about the complicity of senior trade union officials in the blacklisting have suddenly gone quiet on this.

Were they making it up? Were they telling lies?

One reason could be that these very vocal blacklisted workers have been silenced with legal threats.

The following two pages are extracts from the blacklist support group Facebook page.

The first is a link to the Steve Acheson Defence Campaign' from April 2013 which is currently calling for donations, stating that Steve is in serious debt (to the tune of some 25,000 pounds) and about to lose his home. In this, Michael Dooley comments: "UCATT have threatened to sue Steve in the High Court unless he pays money and stops saying things about ucatt. Denis Doody is on the UCATT Executive Committee and wants people to stop criticizing UCATT."


The second details an extract from a lengthy conversation in which Dooley asks Denis Doody why his union, Ucatt have instructed OH Parsons to demand money from Steve otherwise he will be sued in the High Court.


Dooley and Acheson are founder members of the blacklist support group and very close. The conversation is there to view in full on Facebook. Well I say in full. It does appears to have been censored.

Blacklist Support Group - Facebook Censorship

At 07:03 am this morning, a link to this website was posted on the BSG Facebook page. A screenshot of this can be seen via the following link:


An hour or so later, after a few posts from Dave Smith and 'Hey Presto', it's gone. Disappeared. Just like magic...

It was then posted again a couple of hours later with slightly different wording and again... Disappeared. Just like magic...

One More Thing

On the role of the trade unions in the blacklisting:


Tuesday, 3 September 2013


Happy to have helped clear this up...

Please read in conjunction with the following posts:





Crossrail response - Unite drops claims of blacklisting on Crossrail project 

The Unite union has today confirmed that there has been no contravention of the blacklisting regulations on the Crossrail contracts being undertaken by BFK JV (Bam, Ferrovial, Kier) with Unite agreeing that no blacklisting has taken place.

Andrew Wolstenholme, Crossrail Chief Executive said: “Blacklisting is indefensible, unacceptable and unlawful. Over the last year, the Unite union has made a series of misleading and unsubstantiated allegations concerning blacklisting on the Crossrail project. By their own admission, Unite advised the Scottish Affairs Committee that their evidence was circumstantial and was not sufficient to prove blacklisting.  Unite has now issued a joint statement with our western tunnels contractor BFK stating that no blacklisting has taken place.”

Friday, 30 August 2013


This post will focus on two emails distributed by the Blacklist Support Group (BSG) in 2010 and 2011.  The BSG is headed up by electricians, Dave Smith, Steve Acheson and Colin Trousdale. The emails are written and distributed by Dave Smith.

BSG Email - 7 Feb 2011

In the first email, Dave expresses his concerns about the cover up of my evidence by the then general Secretary, Derek Simpson saying:  

"It seems that despite Mr Wainwright's best efforts that we are still awaiting the Utopian dream of a blacklist-free construction industry and if Derek Simpson has his way the union renegades who helped enforce the blacklist will get off scot-free."

It details a personal statement from Colin Trousdale: 

"It appears to me that these officers will go unpunished if it is left to the hierarchy of the union both past and present! We must continue with our endeavours to unmask these wretches and make them face the wrath of their victims if nothing else."

"I have seen three comrades go to the grave without the chance of clearing their name or at least having the knowledge of who in our union betrayed them, I will not go to mine without justice for them and myself".

BSG EMAIL - 7 FEB 2011

BSG Email - 11 Oct 2010

In the second email, Dave expresses his concerns about the unions withdrawing their legal support for a number of key employment tribunal cases a day or two before the hearings.

On page 2, point 6 of the email he names the cases and states:

"The union is withdrawing support only one or two days before the cases are meant to be heard in court - which leaves no-one with anytime to make alternative arrangements."

He goes on to stress:

"As the ETI forms were filled in by the very same solicitors in the first place - why the sudden change of heart."

He continues on page 3 to say:

"Either way blacklisted workers who are long standing union members are having legal representation withdrawn at the last minute".

In point 7 he talks about Unite voting to carry out an investigation into the role of corrupt union officials in the blacklisting scandal following the release of unredacted files that name individual union officials as supplying information to the blacklist and says: "IT'S ABOUT BLOODY TIME"

Another internal investigation? 

We all know the outcome of those!

BSG EMAIL - 11 Oct 2010 (Pg1)

BSG EMAIL - 11 Oct 2010 (Pg2)

BSG EMAIL - 11 Oct 2010 (Pg3)


As always, I'm just presenting the evidence as it stands. There's lots more to come and I will index the posts chronologically over the weekend so they're easier to follow.

My primary concern has always been to get to the truth which has been complex as I weave through the political and financial agenda's of the respective parties.

But one thing is now becoming much clearer in respect of the motives and actions of the trade unions in all this.

All my posts are backed up with firm evidence and there is still much more to come.

Wednesday, 28 August 2013


The following is a series of emails sent between electrician, Frank Morris, Unite's London Regional Officer, Vince Passfield, the leader of the Labour Party, Len McCluskey, Unite's Executive Officer, Tony Woodley and Unite's Director of Organising and Leverage, Sharon Graham in 2011 and 2012.

Frank subsequently copies them to me, the Blacklist Support Group and Jerry Hicks on 5 March 2012. 

These all form part of one email thread and I'll post these in chronological order.

Frank Morris to Vince Passfield - 18 Feb 2011

In this, Frank writes to Vince Passfield setting out a statement of his experience at the Olympic Park and asking for any advice and assistance he can provide.


Vince Passfield to Frank Morris - 21 Feb 2011

Passfield provides an extensive response, stating that it was his belief that Frank was pursuing a grievance complaint through representation of the RMT union.

He goes on to say that he is "extremely concerned" about the allegations Frank is making about him and goes into extensive detail about his understanding of prior events.

He specifically points out that:

  • Frank had never informed him that he was a witness to any alleged comments made by a Daletech supervisor or that any discussion took place
  • Daletech had never mentioned Franks' name to him either as a witness to alleged acts or any other matter
  • Franks' name did not get mentioned by Daletech or the complainant in relation to a dismissal at the Olympic Project
  • The complainant had never mentioned Franks' name or disclosed the identity of his witness to that date

I'm assuming 'the complainant' is the sacked electrician Frank appears to have made a fuss over at the Olympic Project.

Passfield continues to give his account of matters, stating that he'd given Frank some advice by text and in writing which he'd ignored.

Passfield is basically saying that Franks' version of events in untrue. He recommends that Frank contacts another Construction Officer in the Dagenham office and furthermore that he provides confirmation that the RMT are no longer acting on his behalf.

There's obviously a lot more here than my brief summary, so I'd suggest a full read of the email.



Frank Morris to Len McCluskey and Tony Woodley - 21 Feb 2011

Frank immediately writes to Len McCluskey and Tony Woodley stating that he had previously written to them regarding the Olympic project, that Passfield is lying in his email response and suggests that he is doing so to protect an ECA member company.


Frank Morris to Sharon Graham - 5 March 2012

The final correspondence in this email thread is from Frank to Sharon Graham a year later. In this, he states that no one has come back to him in over a year and that he can categorically say that Passfield is lying.

He suggests that Passfield is possibly lying to protect himself from disciplinary action and that Passfield has "tried to imply in union circles that he was somehow an RMT activist trying to stir up trouble". He talks about his case being thrown out and how this has affected his family, as winning would have exposed that blacklisting was current. 

He concludes by saying "It's ironic that a Unite officer has been instrumental in destroying it".

This email is subsequently forwarded to me, the Blacklist Support Group and Jerry Hicks later that day.



So who is lying? Passfield or Frank?

Why do Unite ignore Frank for well over a year and then all of a sudden make a big fuss over him at Crossrail?

Why does Gail Cartmail spend two hours trying to convince the select committee and the mainstream TV and press that Frank Morris is a contemporary victim of blacklisting at Crossrail when the most senior regional Unite official in the area has blatantly accused him of being an out and out liar in respect of his allegations about the Olympic Park project?

There is something fundamentally wrong here with Unite's involvement in the blacklisting and it's something the small group of Labour MP's who frequent the select committee and the Blacklist Support Group are not interested in touching with a barge pole.

Thursday, 22 August 2013

BENT UNION OFFICIALS? (4) - (Updated 31/08/13)

The day after I gave evidence to the select committee I had a chance conversation with a person on Facebook who had not only worked for the union (Amicus/Unite), but had also worked for the Electrical Contractors Association and is currently a senior labour manager with one of the major construction companies.

This person is watching my evidence to the select committee on the iplayer as we exchange messages.

He's given me permission to use this information providing I redact his personal details, as he too fears repercussions for himself and his family if he's found to be providing this information.

I've therefore redacted his identity and highlighted his comments for clarity.

Tom Hardacre - Unite National Officer

Or "Spark's Nemesis" as he refers to him in this conversation.

In pages 1 and 2 below he talks about Tom Hardacre providing information to labour managers on certain workers and says "By the way, Tom Hardacre was the worst for blacklist activity!"

He explains the strategy used by Hardacre to highlight certain workers and goes on to say that the union are currently "the only people hell bent on telling us who we should or shouldn't employ".

Tom Hardacre retired in 2011, but is this the first hard evidence of modern day blacklisting following the closure of the Consulting Association in 2009?



Micky Tuff

In pages 6 to 8 below he talks about Micky Tuff and their conversations about Micky being instructed to cover up my blacklisting evidence. He says they were "good pals" and that he was breaking Micky's confidence in telling me this.




This evidence was submitted to the select committee clerk and Chuka Umunna on 15 March 2013.

The select committee have Gail Cartmail giving evidence for two hours on 2 July 2013, but not a single question about the union's complicity in all this from those attending the session that day.

Ian Davidson - Labour
Lindsay Roy - Labour
Jim McGovern - Labour
Graeme Morrice - Labour (also declaring himself a Unite member)
Alan Reid - Lib Dem