The blacklist expands
Due process has been eliminated in the UK for anyone who is interviewed by the police or against whom certain allegations are made, false or otherwise, as far as that person's reputation is concerned. It began when the Criminal Records Bureau was set up to offer a centralised service for employers to request information regarding an employee's suitability for working with children and vulnerable adults. It has however already become available to the commercial sector for the validation of an individual's identity in the first instance and his or her honour and integrity in the second.

One's honour and integrity no longer depend on whether or not one has been convicted for a criminal act. You are blacklisted if anyone has made a certain kind of allegation against you. In the UK, when an application is submitted for a disclosure of any kind, the police are authorised to release relevant information about formal police warnings, cautions, charges and convictions (public record information), while the Departments of Health and Education are authorised to release formal cautionary information about previous employment.

However, when an Enhanced Disclosure is requested (working with very vulnerable children, intelligence roles, prison services), the police are allowed to disclose information they hold as 'intelligence value'. This can be information collected by reliable and equally unreliable sources, such as a malicious or disgruntled neighbours, competitors, fellow employees, former spouses, and so on. As the main individual in the story below says, "The intelligence information is not subject to verification and therefore sits under the Uncertainty Umbrella (He is quoting the famous author Alfred Korzybski) as inferences and not fact." In his own case he states: "Reading the intelligence the police were willing to publish about me, it seems very clearly like facts with a nice spread of hunch, guess, speculation and innuendo."

This means that the Criminal Records Bureau can place you on a file that stops you getting employment, even if the information about you is false or supplied to the police by a malicious informer. It is also called 'soft intelligence' and when challenged that certain information about individuals may be false, inaccurate or slanderous, the police reply that it is still 'soft intelligence' and is being passed on to potential employers 'in the interest of protecting children' or vulnerable adults.

The first an innocent person may know about a malicious accusation is when their 'enhanced criminal records bureau check' comes up and they are told that they must step aside from their job, even though no criminal action may be taken. To be accused now is truly to be convicted

Narlo's story

Dear Inquisition21,

One morning last year at 8:15 my wife and I had the experience of loud and persistent banging at our door together with shouting and twenty plain clothes and uniformed police barging their way into our home when the door was opened to greet them. This unexpected visit was highlighted by equally loud demands about the whereabouts of our children. We felt perplexed because we have no children and it occurred to us that if children were present that morning they would have been forcibly taken away. We looked at each other and acknowledged the seriousness of the police presence by mouthing to each other: "What is this about?"

After separating us the lead investigator announced he was arresting me for: ‘Suspicion of incitement to distribute pornographic material involving children, attempted incitement to distribute pornographic material involving children’, and ‘making and possessing of indecent photographs of children’.

I projected and made meaning of my life differently from that moment on. It became apparent during the 30 mile drive to the police station that I had the opportunity to apply General Semantics formulations. When I did so, my neuro-semantic reactions of panic and fear changed to calm and confidence. It seemed to me during the interview (and afterwards) that the Child Protection officers were confused by working from their less-useful map-territory relationships.

Back at our house, the police had confiscated five computers (two which were ours and three were those of friends and neighbours), a 35mm camera, three Transactional Analysis instruction videos, various (over 200) Data CDs and Floppy Disks, business cards, books and other sundry items.

My wife, who did not apply General Semantics formulations at that time, was in an emotional state of shock. One of the investigating officers told her that they had evidence that I purchased, downloaded, printed, and distributed the most horrific child pornographic images they had ever seen and that I was probably going to jail for a very long time, and would she make a statement. After telling these officers that they had the wrong person and were very mistaken, she left the police in the house alone and made her way to the police station where I had been taken.

Over the course of the investigation, I was arrested and interviewed twice more and my wife arrested and interviewed once. Our solicitor recently told me that my wife's arrest was totally unnecessary and in his opinion used as a ploy to put pressure on me to confess to something while I was sitting in the cell next to her.

When the forensics laboratory work was finished the results were the discovery of a CD-R containing 31 ‘Level 1 images of child pornography’. There was no evidence that the CD had ever been accessed or created on any of the computers we owned or had in our possession. The police tried in vein to get both of us to admit to something we had no knowledge of. I felt they had been overly coercive in their behaviours.

When the police investigation finished and the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the case notes, audio transcripts, evidence, and our statements, they determined that no evidence was available to link us to the CD, its contents and dropped the 10-month long case.

During the time of the investigation I could not apply for employment and had suspended my therapy practice for ethical reasons and to concentrate on the case. My wife thought it best to continue working in a job she feels so passionately about.

The case was not over by any stretch of the imagination. It was during the period of this investigation that the Huntley murder case was underway and the UK police in Humberside were severely criticised by government and the public for failing to ‘vet’ Ian Huntley as suitable to work with children. The Humberside police, and later many other police authorities in the UK, would remark about the unsuitability of local intelligence databases and a need for a national intelligence database that could be accessible to all police authorities.

The week following our case being dropped, I was offered employment as a therapist working with vulnerable children, a similar role to what my wife does. In this role, an Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check is required. I did not anticipate any problems with an Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check as I was not charged and the case was dropped. To further support that expectation I had asked the police if the case would have any bearing on an Enhanced Disclosure and they said unequivocally ‘no’ on three separate occasions in the presence of my solicitor.

After seven weeks of waiting, I began to feel increasingly suspicious. I have had these checks on numerous other occasions and they usually were returned within 14 days. So I began to make inquiries and 14 weeks later I received a letter from the Data Protection Department of the Police Authority for my area stating that they were going to disclose my arrest and the details to my employer. What the police authority stated in their letter to me about what they were going to communicate was false, inaccurate, and slanderous. I challenged them and they said that their database has the information and that they are acting on it in the ‘interest of protecting children’.

(Note: all of this time I was not being paid because the Enhanced Disclosure was needed to do my job)

I resigned my position and complained to the police authority. They said in a letter that because I resigned before they sent the report to the Criminal Records Bureau who then sent it to my employer, that there was no process available to challenge the letter, process, or intelligence.

I am looking for any information about what I might do next. I have not yet found a solicitor who is willing to help me with the police intelligence and false information that it contains. I am not interested in working with children now having moved on to other things. The other concern that we have presently is that my wife's Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check is due for renewal in the next year and whether it contains similar false, inaccurate, and slanderous information as 'intelligence’.

We want to fight this possibility and I'm looking for some advice and a strong solicitor to represent us.

Kind Regards
Narlo

Dear Narlo,

First, greetings to you and your wife. You have joined a distinguished community of fellow humans.

>I projected and made meaning of my life differently from that moment on.

It's good for me to read these words and know that we are within the same domain of making meanings. I have been trying to help people who have been publicly and privately shamed to use the acceptance of the change in their status as a first step in dealing with it, but I never really know if others understand what I am trying to say.

> On July 21st 2003 I was arrested and interviewed

A date you will forever remember. The photographer Jock Sturges regrets that our lives are defined by such events, but they are.

>It seemed to me during the interview (and afterwards) that the police were working from less-useful map-territory relationships and were confused.

They were not even operating within the same domain of evaluation. They have been dangerously empowered by the criminalization of human sexuality.

> "Level 1 images" of child pornography.

Possibly child nudity or eroticism, possibly also quite beautiful
and acceptable 20 years ago.

>During this time I could not apply for employment and had suspended my psychotherapy practice for ethical reasons

Which brings us to the heart of the problem. Which is

>I received a letter from the Data Protection Department of the Police Authority for my area stating that they were going to disclose my arrest and the details to my employer.

No due process. Accusation equals guilt or at least changed status. Totally unconstitutional in countries with a constitution, but our expert colleagues will know the UK legal position.

>in the "interest of protecting children".

which is the Inquisition mantra and what one of our writers calls the 'crimen exceptum' allowing the suspension of due process.

>I am looking for any information about what I might do next.

I will circulate this to our 'panel' of experts who don't like to be called that but who are as good as we will get and better than most lawyers. They also know the UK CP situation well. I won't include your email although I'm sure each will invite you to correspond directly and privately should you choose to. If they and you copy me also, I'll try to summarize for others too. This is a very important case. One of the individuals we have been helping is about to mount a case for false
accusation and public shaming in a situation where the police found nothing after leaking his arrest and the seizure of his files to the media.

The possibility of material being planted after raids has also arisen as it's an easy way out for the police.

Best wishes

Editor

Dear Editor,

Thank you (heartfelt) for putting together a thoughtful response.

This is the first time that I have talked to anyone, other than my wife and solicitor, about the case and the emotional release experienced after visiting your site, writing the initial note and your reply has given me the opportunity to experience that lovely neuro-semantic, neuro-linguistic
relaxation via systemic reciprocity.

The photographs the police ‘claim’ they found on the CD were never shown to me or my wife. They are described in the forensic write up as the ‘lowest possible level’ and were ‘mainly precocious posing’.

When I challenged the interpretation the police interviewers appeared flummoxed. I had with me (2nd & 3rd interview) copies of: Jock Sturges's - Radiant Identities and David Hamilton's - Age of innocence. The police interviewers were from the Child Protection (CP) division and when I showed them the photographs they indicated that since the pictures appeared in a published book that they were ‘legal’ and contrasted the difference of downloaded images of a similar nature as ‘illegal’, in the vein of 'crimen exceptum'.

I also feel quite chuffed that we are talking about it from similar perspectives of philosophy and facts. I have had Philosphere Publishers linked on my web site for nearly 18 months and often visit it. It appears that we have something else in common together.

My solicitor has said that I can file a civil suit if I want to but he was unwilling (possibly unable) to take it on. For that matter he did not give me much advice throughout the case. I've had the opportunity to learn a bit about British law and the current arguments regarding operation ore, and at
a higher level of abstraction, "child pornography" including the Copine Scales (http://www.copine.ie/publications.php).

It seems to me that whatever the individual police person thinks or feels about the meaning of "child porn" that there exists an institutional (police, politics, society, etc) bias that the writer (Reid ?) you referred to formulated as 'crimen exceptum'. This type of bias or ‘ism’ has resulted in significantly less flexibility in members and victims of the bias to adapt, survive and thrive.

I feel encouraged by your website and the personal/professional links you are making internationally. The wider philosophical arguments and observations are plentiful. You may already have this link somewhere and its
contents were very important to me then (2003) and now: Spiked.

Thank you for discretely passing on my details to your contacts. I feel encouraged that now we might get the advice we need to pursue the matter.

I'm not after a specific outcome other than my wife's reputation and CRB Enhanced Disclosure not to show the event.

Kindest Regards
Narlo

From UK colleague Number 1.

Hi Editor and Narlo

> I also feel quite chuffed that we are talking about it from similar perspectives of philosophy and facts.

I'm not really sure about this philosophy business. If you can use some theoretical standpoint as a way of approaching the situation you find yourself that allows you to get a better grip on it, then I suppose it is fine... but the police do philosophy with a
hammer.

> The photographs the police "claim" they found on the CD were never shown to me or my wife. They are described in the forensic write-up as the ‘lowest possible level’ and were ‘mainly precocious posing’.

> When I challenged the interpretation the police interviewers appeared flummoxed. I had with me (2nd & 3rd interview) copies of: Jock Sturges's - Radiant Identities and David Hamilton's - Age of innocence. The police interviewers were from the CP division and when I showed them the photographs they indicated that since the pictures appeared in a published book that they were ‘legal’ and contrasted the difference of downloaded images of a similar nature as ‘illegal’, in the vein of
'crimen exceptum'.

This is just errant nonsense. If a photograph is illegal, it is illegal. Doesn't matter where it appears. If it is in a book, then you MIGHT be able to make out the defence that you have a ‘legitimate reason’ to possess it on the grounds that it is recognised work by a recognised artist and you have some professional or academic interest that means you have a non-prurient interest.... but if that ‘legitimate reasons’ can be argued, it can be argued in any case - even where the images are downloaded of the Internet. Looking past the bluff of ‘images of a similar nature’, what if the same images as were found in a book were downloaded off the Internet? Would they be legal in the book on your shelf, but illegal on the disk in your computer? What if you took one of those books down from your shelf and scanned an image? What is
different - in nature - between the image in the book and the image that you scanned? What is different that makes the latter illegal but the first legal?

As I say, errant nonsense. And a violation of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm sorry to have to say that I do not know very much about the CRB.

Cheers

UK colleague Number 1.

From UK colleague Number 2.

Hi Editor,

Please pass on my good wishes to 'Narlo'. His contribution at MBS would be most welcome and his experience of the CRB checks post-Bichard has already come up in a case where an Ore suspect was not even arrested or interviewed by the police but still was barred from any post involving children.
See MBS.

I asked a legal contact for advice on this chap's behalf and his reply is posted here. By all means copy this to Narlo. (Editor. Unfortunately it is confidential and not for publication here. We passed it on to Narlo.)

I think the issue of CRB 'refusals' in these circumstances is scandalous though predictable as a consequence of the Bichard conclusions. Of course 'soft intelligence' was only intended to be used as a guide esp when a number of patterns of behaviour emerge but in the current atmosphere it is not surprising that ANY 'intelligence' will result in a bar.

Regards,

UK colleague Number 2.

Narlo replies to UK colleague Number 1.

Dear UK colleague Number 1.

Thank you for replying.

I want to offer some clarification in response to your response forwarded to me by Editor today and provide you with more details.

The philosophical perspective that I was ‘chuffed’ about was not necessarily to do with the police, but rather a comment to Editor regarding General Semantics and Bois's Epistemology; that it appears we have in common.

With regard to my experiences with the police I feel that my understanding of General Semantics & Epistemology directly contributed to 3 successful (for me - and frustration for the police) interviews and subsequent abstracting afterwards.

I agree with you regarding the police's response to the photographs in the books. They certainly seem to be using dual/multiple standards. This was very apparent and also recorded and admissible as evidence should this go to a tribunal or civil trial. That was one of my intentional decisions for bringing in the books, to understand what standards they were working to.

One of the questions I posed to them during the interview was precisely the point you also made: What if the same photographs from the books were available on the Internet and I had downloaded them? Rather than sit and discuss the points with me, their levels of frustration appeared to get the best of them. They insisted that the forensic ‘scientist’ would make the determination whether the photos were ‘Child Porn’ or not. So we moved on....

Sometime in September of 2003 I contacted the Human Rights group in London to discuss the case. I didn't get very far for reasons that remain unclear. They were persistent that they could do nothing until the investigation was completed. (At that time I was seriously concerned that I might do jail time or receive a conviction for something I didn't do.)

The person I spoke with was helpful in referring a couple of solicitors names to me but unwilling (at that time) to take up the case or refer it internally. There was also an insistence that I would need to be financially prepared to fight this in Europe if it went that far. Not an option as we live in council housing and I was unemployed at the time.

The Criminal Records Bureau was set up about 4 years ago in response to the Data Protection Act. It offers a centralised service for employers to request information regarding an employee's suitability for working with children and vulnerable adults. The following organisations contribute to a ‘Regular Disclosure’ and ‘Enhanced Disclosure’:

Capita Plc - CRB partner in the Disclosure service. Involved in procedures processing your data; Police Forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - data may be passed to local police forces in the area where you live, or have previously lived; Department of Health/Department for Education and Skills (DH/DfES) - the list held will be checked if your job involves working with children or vulnerable adults; Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) - if you have spent any time living in Scotland, your details may be referred; Experian Ltd - with your consent, your data may be passed to Experian Ltd. The company holds databases commonly used in the commercial sector for validating identity;

When an applicant is submitted for a disclosure of any kind the police are authorised to release relevant information about FORMAL police warnings, cautions, charges and convictions (public record information).

The Departments of Health and Education are authorised to release formal cautionary information about previous employment.

When an Enhanced Disclosure is requested (working with very vulnerable children) then the police are allowed to disclose information they hold as ‘intelligence value’. As you might imagine this might be information collected by reliable and equally unreliable sources such as a disgruntled neighbour, spouse, friend, etc. The intelligence information is not subject to verification and therefore sits under the Uncertainty Umbrella (Korzybski) as inferences and not fact.

However, reading the intelligence the police were willing to publish about me, it seems very clearly like facts with a nice spread of hunch, guess, speculation and innuendo.

"Mr Narlo (pseudonym) (DOB) was arrested on suspicion of Incitement to distribute pornographic material involving children, attempting to incite the distribution of pornographic material involving children, making indecent images of children and possession of indecent images of children. Mr Narlo had 31 indecent pictures of children on his personal computer. The images were categorised as category 1 under the principles laid down in R -v- Oliver (2002), this is identified as 'erotic posing with not sexual activity'. It was established that the images had been downloaded into a separate folder on the computer, which would have to have been deliberately created.

”Mr Narlo said in interview that he had never deliberately searched the internet of child pornography and had never sent any indecent images to any other person. An advice file was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service who deemed that no criminal proceedings should be instituted."

My debate with this official intelligence is that it cannot be forensically substantiated. There were no images detected on my personal computer. This had to do with a Compact Disk (R/RW) that they found among 100s. There was no forensic evidence that linked the CD to any computer in the house. There was no forensic evidence that demonstrated that the CD had ever been viewed by any computer in the house or that it was made by any computer in the house. The police reported that they were not even sure of the true date the CD was created.

They gave me 7 days to reply and I decided to resign before working. I then sent a complaint about the erroneous information in the database and the reply was this:

"Dear Mr Narlo,

As you have withdrawn your application for employment the Enhanced Disclosure application is negated and therefore there is no dispute process within the CRB
that you may initiate.

You should seek your own legal advice on the issue."

Kind Regards

Editorial questions.

The only evidence offered by the police was a CD-R containing 31 ‘Level 1 images of child pornography’ that neither Narlo nor his wife know where it came from. When the police determined that no evidence was available to link them to the CD and its contents they dropped the 10-month long case.

Did the police ‘accidentally’ include this CD with his files? The police are holding what are probably the world’s largest collections of so-called ‘child porn’. Was the evidence planted after they wrongly accused him to justify their mistake?

Narlo said “My solicitor has said that I can file a civil suit if I want to but he was unwilling (possibly unable) to take it on. For that matter he did not give me much advice throughout the case.” We are hearing this disgusting legal reaction over and over. It’s possible that the whole legal profession is infected with the politically correct assumption that accusation equals guilt in all cases of child sex abuse and child porn.

And: “Sometime in September of 2003 I contacted the Human Rights group in London to discuss the case. I didn't get very far for reasons that remain unclear.”

It is clear to us. The civil liberties groups and Amnesty regard accusations of child abuse as beyond questioning, because of their own ideological orientation.