When the gatekeepers choose who may question them, oversight becomes theater, not governance.
CINDY HARPER
A growing storm has erupted over the UK Home Office’s refusal to release details about which NGOs and charities have been shaping asylum accommodation policy, after officials cited a journalist’s social media activity as a supposed “safety risk.”
The department rejected journalist Lewis Brackpool’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request, claiming that disclosure could lead to “public backlash” and endanger individuals involved in policy meetings.
Documents show the Home Office leaned on provisions under Sections 36 and 38 of the Freedom of Information Act to justify secrecy, arguing that publication might “inhibit free and frank discussions” and “increase the risk of targeted protests.”
More: The Freedom of Information Act and How To Use It
The withheld material reportedly includes internal notes and summaries from the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum (NASF) and the Strategic Engagement Group (SEG), key bodies where government officials meet with NGOs to discuss asylum housing, hotel placements, and safeguarding policies.
Officials insisted that transparency in this case could “reduce the quality of decision-making” and place “additional strain on public order resources.”
Brackpool, who published the full exchange online, condemned the decision as an abuse of power. Calling it “the most ABSURD FOI response I’ve had to date,” he pointed out that the Freedom of Information Act explicitly prohibits authorities from considering a requester’s identity or opinions.
“A government department just used my identity as a journalist to justify blocking a lawful transparency request,” he wrote.
He accused the Home Office of protecting politically connected NGOs from accountability while using the language of “safety” as a shield against scrutiny.
“They’re shielding well-connected NGOs and contractors from scrutiny, the same organisations shaping policy on illegal migration and housing at taxpayers’ expense,” Brackpool said, adding that he has filed an internal appeal demanding the decision be overturned.
The refusal has drawn political backlash of its own. MP Rupert Lowe wrote to the Home Secretary, calling the move “a clear breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its central principle that requests must be treated applicant-blind.”
Lowe demanded a full explanation of how Brackpool’s social media activity came to influence the decision, along with confirmation of whether senior officials sanctioned it.
Lowe warned that allowing personal or political views to determine who can access public information “risks politicising the FOI process itself,” and urged the Home Office to issue a corrective disclosure and reaffirm its legal obligation to impartiality.
What began as a routine transparency request has now escalated into a larger test of press freedom and government accountability. By treating a journalist’s online presence as justification for secrecy, the Home Office has raised profound concerns about whether officials can selectively decide who deserves access to the truth.
This is dangerous precedent: when the state can withhold information because it dislikes the person asking, transparency ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege.
This article (UK Home Office Blocks Journalist’s FOI Request on Asylum Policy NGOs, Citing “Safety Risk” from Social Media) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Cindy Harper
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply