On Friday March 6th the “World At One” transmitted a program which should have resulted in all those concerned being sacked for bringing the BBC into disrepute.

Rape is a terrible crime. According to the Merck Online Medical Library ( http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch253/ch253c.html) “The psychologic effects of a rape are often more devastating than the physical”. Victims “ may feel angry, depressed, embarassed, ashamed, or guilty (wondering whether they may have done something to provoke the rape or could have done something to avoid it)”. Other consequences may include: extreme fear; feelings of helplessness; sexual dysfunction; and the breakdown of marriages and relationships. Yes, it's a terrible crime, but long-term unemployment can produce all those effects and more.

In 2006 the Department of Work and Pensions issued a press release ( http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2006/sep/cphs040-060906.pdf) about an independent study which had reviewed 400 pieces of scientific evidence concerning the health effects of unemployment. The press release said:

“Being out of work is bad for both mind and body. Unemployment progressively damages health and results in more sickness, disability, mental illness, obesity, use of medication and medical services and decreased life expectancy.”

Decreased life expectancy isn't one of the consequences generally attributed to rape. So, impartial research shows that the effects of long-term unemployment are worse than being raped, and even the government acknowledges the evidence. Knowing you're long-term unemployed because you've been blacklisted, and that it's a result of deliberate persecution, is even worse than being unemployed for some innocent reason like a lack of skills. Worst of all is knowing that what's being said about you is all malicious lies by a bunch of filthy criminals. It makes every single rejected job application like being violated all over again. And as if that wasn't bad enough, you have politicians and the corporate media (like the BBC) demonising the long-term sick and unemployed, and continually demanding harsher measures against you.

Of course you don't need an actual blacklist. The same effect can be achieved simply by telling malicious lies when asked for an employment reference. I know for a fact that when I refused to take part in a criminal fraud by my employer, and resigned from my job in IT, my former employer was telling everyone they had sacked me for “destroying information in our computers”. The implication was that I had planted some sort of computer virus. It was a complete fabrication, and more damaging than accusing me of being a paedophile. I wanted to sue them when I found out, but every solicitor I went to said it was impossible for anyone who wasn't a millionaire to finance a defamation suit. Law firms can now take such cases on a 'no win no fee' basis (which wasn't allowed back then). However when I approached defamation specialists Carter-Ruck in 2000, I was told they would charge a non-refundable fee of £400 an hour until they were sure they couldn't possibly lose. Thus it remains impossible for an ordinary person to sue a wealthy corporation for defamation.

You might ask why my employer wasn't prosecuted over the criminal fraud. The answer is because it was fraud on government contracts, and they were protected by corrupt politicians and civil servants. They were not only protected from criminal prosecution, but also from public exposure or secret blacklisting (I wrote to my MP proposing that known criminals should be blacklisted to prevent them carrying out any more fraud on government contracts. I got a letter from the government minister explicitly rejecting this. Upon leaving his ministerial position, he got a job with one of these criminal organisations. He was extremely well paid, although no one could identify any actual work which he did while he was there).

The BBC has a plethora of programs exclusively devoted to the views of wealthy business people, but the issue of blacklisting and malicious references by British employers only gets a brief mention about once a decade. They've certainly never mentioned it in programs where they have a go at the unemployed and long-term sick. They only covered the subject this time because of a raid by the Information Commissioner on a firm which supplied a blacklist to the construction industry (see  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/data-protection-construction-industry). Instead of trying to deal honestly and fairly with the issues involved, the BBC hit a new low with this program. They actually made excuses for blacklisting.

Lets put this in perspective.

If a woman was subjected to a brutal rape, would they dare to broadcast comments by their staff saying “come on, the way she was dressed she was asking for it”? Of course not.

It was recently reported (and there was a photo of her badly beaten face) that pop star Rihanna had been savagely beaten by her boyfriend after she discovered a text message from another woman on his phone. Can you imagine the BBC allowing an interviewer to say “well, she probably deserved a smack in the face for looking at his private text messages”? They wouldn't dare broadcast something like that.

Now take a look at this exchange between World At One presenter James Robbins and Nick Graham, described as an expert in Data Protection law:

Robbins: “Are employers, particularly in the construction industry, with all its special peculiarities, at a huge disadvantage facing the Data Protection act, because if they have unruly staff, in an industry where people move around very rapidly, they need to be able to protect themselves don't they?”

Graham: “Well, I think that's a fair point actually... the law, and industry, at the moment is failing to provide employers with the information they need to, in a very legitimate way, protect their business interests, and of course our public interest”.

UCATT (construction workers' union) General Secretary Alan Ritchie told the program “If a company wishes to keep information on any individual, then that individual should have the right to challenge it, and say 'that is not true'”. However, the fact that what's said in a blacklist might be deliberate lies and provably untrue was not made. Throughout the program, it was referred to as “information”, with the implication that what is on blacklists is true.

OK, so 'The World At One' didn't actually gang-rape me. Their role was more like the gang members who stand around and cheer on the rapists, and then lie about it afterwards to protect the actual perpetrators.

My mental and physical health have been destroyed, and for what? Because I refused to take part in a crime. I suffer every day. Despite being an atheist, I've started to wish an angel would come and take me up to heaven, so I wouldn't have to go through this any more.

Where is the outrage about all this? Is it only we, the victims of malicious lies by employers, who feel it?