Every Potential Scandalous Dataset the British Government and Its Departments Have Suppressed
Every Potential Scandalous Dataset the British Government and Its Departments Have Suppressed
Summaries of what they're hiding and who might be responsible...
Transparency is the backbone of democracy. It’s how we make sure our politicians aren’t burying their snouts in the trough of public cash or plotting some ridiculous Bond villain takeover of the world. More likely, it keeps them from sweeping their shady, probably illegal screw-ups under the rug, hoping we’re too distracted to notice.
Yet, the UK government has often faced accusations of concealing information that belongs to the public. One infamous example is, of course, the Iraq War. The UK, alongside its allies, justified military intervention by asserting that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). People asked for the evidence, but they didn’t show any. And once the invasion was underway, it became all too clear that it was a load of baloney.
If you need a reminder, they said Iraq could deploy WMDs within 45 minutes. Years later, when 1,625 UN and US inspectors searched 1,700 Iraqi sites for two years, at a cost of more than $1 billion, they found nothing of the sort—that’s how bad the falsehood was.
Of course, no one was punished. Since then, the UK government has become increasingly cosy with suppressing data. To where now, they even withhold basic demographic data. We’re talking about the stuff that should be available to undergrad students.
Below are four datasets/records the government and its departments should have released, but are concealing from public view, seemingly beyond all reason.
Immigrant Crime, Tax, and Welfare
In December 2023, concerned by record levels of immigration, Conservative MP Neil O’Brien submitted various requests to governmental departments on immigrant crime, tax, and welfare. This preceded his comprehensive report entitled, ‘Take Back Control’, which he co-authored and published via think-tank Centre for Policy Studies.
He first emailed His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) asking for records of the amount of tax paid by nationality, along with tax credit and child benefit claims. To his surprise, our taxing authority revealed they’d discontinued publishing the data and that they wouldn’t be publishing it again.
O’Brien found the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) also stopped releasing data on welfare claims by nationality. He confronted them the following month and the department said the records “no longer met the purpose for which they were created”.
This was for one primary reason. Immigrants who have obtained British citizenship may still be included in the number of non-UK nationals claiming benefits, so the data is muddled and not worth publishing.
As a result, British taxpayers were not allowed to see how their money is being spent. Nor were they permitted to see how immigration is financially impacting their economy.
Sir Jim Harra has headed HMRC since 2019.
At the time of O’Neil’s requests, Conservative MP Mel Stride was the minister in charge of DWP. Although, Thérèse Coffey guided the department under Boris Johnson when they stopped publishing the data in 2021/22.
The situation was worse than first thought. O’Brien later found out that The Home Office is concealing information on immigration and crime. That same December, he tabled a request asking for arrests by nationality along with the immigration status of foreign nationals in prisons.
In response, the Home Office said, “data is not collected on the nationality of the person arrested” and that it “does not publish data on the immigration status of foreign nationals held in prisons”. Meaning, one, they’re choosing to withhold data that could better safeguard the public without providing a clear reason. Two, they not even keeping basic level information on whose being arrested and where they’re from.
Speaking for the Home Office, Chris Philp added that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) does, however, collect and publish data on the nationality of the prison population, including the number of non-UK nationals in prison.
But the MOJ’s record-keeping is limited. When O’Brien asked for further analysis of current prisoners—for example, like how many of them are repeat offenders—the department said this would require them to link their data with data from another department. Apparently, the financial costs outweighed the benefits, so they rejected his request.
Conservative MP James Cleverly was Home Secretary at the time.
Alex Chalk, Conservative MP, was the minister in charge of the MOJ.
Investigative journalist Isabel Oakshott discovered that even our Information Commissioner—the bloke who rules whether a government department can dodge freedom of information requests (FOI)—is running cover for the departments.
Following up on a series of FOI requests regarding the costs involved in furnishing flats for “asylum seekers”, the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of the Home Office’s refusal to reveal the information.
They claimed releasing it would put asylum seekers’ “health and safety” at risk, citing the recent protests and riots following the Southport child murders. Fulfilling the FOI did not include revealing the location of the asylum seekers’ accommodation.
Lee Anderson, Reform MP and staunch critic of the Labour government, waded in stating, “the fact that the Home Office and Information Commissioner are hiding or suppressing this information is a kick in the teeth for every single hard-working taxpayer in this country. They should have this information. I think they are probably embarrassed about the cost of it.”
Former New Zealand lawyer John Edwards has served as our Information Commissioner since January 2022.
Labour MP Yvette Cooper is current Home Secretary with Dame Angela Eagle serving as Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum, which includes overseeing asylum policy, accommodation, and returns and removals.
Covid Vaccine Dosage and Death Dates
In January, former independent MP Andrew Bridgen claimed that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were withholding data that could categorically prove the extent of Covid vaccine harm.
Dr Clare Craig, co-chair of the Hart Group—a group of doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts who “continue to question the science”—had submitted a number of FOIs to both departments requesting data on Covid vaccine dosage dates and deaths.
UKHSA and MHRA, however, stonewalled her because of their inability (or rather the failure) to anonymise the data, warning that publishing it would compromise the privacy of members of the public.
A verdict that was undermined somewhat when Bridgen and Craig discovered the departments had released the data to Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca—the giant pharmaceutical companies that manufactured Covid vaccines.
Bridgen remarked, “they've released our health data to Big Pharma but they won't release it us... is it really too much to ask that the British public be given the same level of access to the relevant data given to Big Pharma companies."
The news came amid a major shake up in our medical regulator. Its CEO announced in 2022 that she sees the mission of the agency as an "enabler" instead of a "watchdog" and even gave a presentation to highlight the shift.
Dame June Raine has presided over MHRA since September 2019.
Professor Dame Jenny Harries has served as chief executive of the UKHSA since May 2021.
Craig followed up with another request about the data this May but UKHSA insisted, “disclosure of the requested data may have negative consequences on the mental health of the families of those deceased individuals”.
In other words, their speculative fears over possible mental health issues arising from the release of such data overrides that of calculating the deaths possibly caused by the Covid vaccines. Note the anonymised data Craig requested did not include the age at death, where they died, or how they died.
When I FOI’d MHRA last year about the price paid per vaccine, they used the similar tactics. Protecting the commercial interests of companies like Pfizer takes priority over our right to know how much of our money was spent on their products, they said.
Climate-Engineering Projects
In May, independent journalist Lewis Brackpool submitted a series of FOI requests to seven government departments concerning the use of geo-engineering technologies.
In response to his request to disclose any ongoing research projects, the Met Office revealed they’ve researched reflecting the Sun’s energy back into space. But it has only been carried out via simulations. In effect, they’re just messing around with models.
Yet, towards the end of their response, they said they withheld some information because it is still in the “course of completion”. Among other reasons, the Met Office’s legal team stated releasing “incomplete data” could mislead, prevent their scientists from working in a “free and undisturbed way”, and “undermine the process of input and analysis”.
In theory, the Met Office could claim their research is ongoing for the next 100 years and reject all disclosure requests. We don’t know if any future physical research is scheduled. Nor we know if regulations allow them to deny the existence of any ongoing physical research. The real kicker, though, the Met Office admitted they have no oversight mechanism. They manage themselves.
The Met Office is a trading fund—an agency that handles its own revenues and expenses like a private business—of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The minister in charge of DSIT at the time of Brackpool’s FOI request was Conservative MP Michelle Donelan.
Scientist Penelope Endersby has served as chief executive of the Met Office since December 2018.
Starmer, Assange, and the Crown Prosecution Service
In October 2023, investigative journalist Matt Kennard uncovered that The Crown Prosecution Service—the agency tasked with conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales—wasn’t suppressing records but destroying them.
The documents Kennard requested concerned four trips Sir Keir Starmer made to Washington while he was Director of Public Prosecutions. Starmer travelled to the U.S. capital in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013, during the time his office was handling Julian Assange's proposed extradition to Sweden for questioning over his alleged rape of two girls.
Assange, who maintained his innocence, feared that extradition to Sweden would lead extradition to the U.S., who essentially wanted to bury him for his publication of leaked materials via WikiLeaks.
Such materials included leaked footage of the now infamous July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike (aka ‘Collateral Murder’). The footage showed two U.S. Apache crews firing and killing several people, including two Reuters journalists, and then laughing afterward.
It was later revealed a CPS lawyer did not want Swedish authorities interviewing Assange in Britain. Why exactly this was the case remains unclear. They could have bought the case to a swift end. The CPS’ obstruction, however, ultimately resulted in Assange being stuck in legal limbo.
Upon the revelation from U.S. sources that Starmer met with Attorney General Eric Holder and a host of American and British national security officials during his trips to Washington, commentators wondered—did the CPS collude with U.S. authorities to immobilise Assange? to stop him publishing more leaks?
Kennard filed another FOI request to the CPS, asking what documents were prepared and later destroyed related to Starmer’s trips. They replied, saying it “does not hold a schedule of destroyed material” and therefore had no information to provide.
CPS policy allows for the destruction of “routine” business documents when they are no longer needed. In contrast, documents of “historical value” should be preserved and sent to The National Archives for public access.
The agency has not clarified why visits by the head of the CPS to high-level U.S. officials would be considered “routine.” Some have speculated that releasing Assange just before the election months ago was a way to make the story disappear for good.
Sir Max Benjamin Rowland Hill was the man in charge of the CPS when Kennard submitted his requests.
Maurice Frankel, director of Campaign for Freedom of Information, said to news outlet Declassified:
“The CPS may have grounds to withhold these from an FOI request – but destroying historically and politically significant records is a different matter. The timing of any destruction is also critical. If they were destroyed while an FOI request for them was being considered that may have been a criminal offence.”
In summary, the government and its various department and agency heads rely on six main justifications:
National Security: Withholding classified information to protect the country from external threats.
Diplomatic Sensitivity: Keeping certain details confidential to maintain international relations or ongoing negotiations.
Public Safety: Claiming that releasing incomplete or sensitive data could mislead or endanger the public.
Operational Integrity: Protecting ongoing military, intelligence, or scientific operations from exposure.
Political Stability: Hiding information to avoid damaging public trust or causing political unrest.
Costs and Value: Refusing to release data due to high processing costs or destroying “routine” records deemed inconsequential.
Taken together, these justifications provide blanket cause to suppress information with next to no repercussions. I would suggest the true reason as to why is quite simple: the government has proven it does not trust the public and if these datasets/records were revealed, mass unrest would indeed follow.
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it…
I wonder how long before a majority of Brits realise that the buffoons being paraded on TV are not their leaders.
Makes me want to weep with impotent fury!
Clearly Starmer was in cahoots with the frigging CIA over Assange. So clearly he is a mere foot soldier. We all know things are going wrong, even people who like to think nothing has really changed or it's always been bad know deep down that the 21st century is different. The huge amount of lies and corruption throughout the western world is vastly different from the corruption of the 20th century. The rise of technology has facilitated much of this.
What to do? What will it take to get the people to rise up and throw off their chains?