Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, David Hansen wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2002 at 10:37, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> 
> > John Wadham, apparently. I've never heard of him.
> 
> He was (and I think still is) director of Liberty. A look at 
> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ will outline their work in 
> more detail.

The spooks think it's a communist front organisation.  Here's a letter
from them to the Home Office in 1951, but the policy was clearly pursued
into the 1970s and 1980s.  Remember: it's people like this that the Home
Office listens to.

ian

Miss E.H. Harting
Home Office

4 July 1951

Dear Miss Harting,

I understand that Mr Oakley wanted a short note from us about the early
history of the National Council of Civil Liberties. This organisation
was founded in 1934 and was ostensibly based on Liberal principles. Its
objective was stated to be "to examine and give publicity to any attacks
on the recognised liberties of the British subject". Its first big
campaign was to organize opposition to the Incitement to Disaffection
Bill.

Amongst the Vice-Presidents in 1934 were to be found several men who are
today distinguished members of the Government and also representatives
of independent thought, such as A.P. Herbert. There is no doubt,
however, that the organisation was penetrated from the start by
Communists, and in the early years the real director of it was its
Secretary, Ronald Kidd, who had been Secretary of the Central London
Branch of the Friends of the Soviet Union. It is known that Kidd was in
consultation with members of the Communist Party before the Council of
Civil Liberties was actually constituted.

I do not think it would be safe to make any assumption about the
significance of membership of the National Council of Civil Liberties
other than it gives a prima facie case for a reference too our records,
when circumstances warrant it. The number of Communists and
Coummnist-sympathisers serving as officers of the National Council of
Civil Liberties (including their Executive Committee) has increased
since 1935 and today approaches 100 per cent. However, there is a fairly
wide dissemination of application forms for enrolment as an individual
member of the organisation, and I have no doubt that many applicants may
be unaware of the political colour of the organisation.

Yours sincerely,

K. Morton Evans

Box No 500,
Parliament Street B.O,
London, SW1