Uncovered: How UK police are hiding their Palantir work

Civil liberties campaigners lodge formal complaint over secretive policing unit instructing forces to withhold information about US spy tech firm

Peter here. A big thank you to those who messaged recently to say they’d made the jump to a paying subscription to support our work. As one reader says, "The time is now to support Democracy for Sale." We couldn’t agree more. If you haven’t already, upgrade to paid to support us to do more quality, independent journalism.

We’ve also got a special treat for subscribers this week. Tomorrow (Friday 26 June) at 14:00 BST, I’ll be speaking with Laleh Khalili. (Click link here to join.)

Laleh is a prolific author, professor of Gulf Studies at Exeter University and one of the sharpest thinkers on how Big Tech is undermining democracy—which is fitting given the subject of today’s newsletter…..

---

The policing unit blocking information about Palantir

Palantir has quickly become one of the most powerful corporations in Donald Trump’s America. Whether it’s deporting migrants or building AI-powered military hardware, Peter Thiel’s firm is there—and making money.

But on this side of the Atlantic, Palantir hasn’t had it all its own way. On Monday, the British Medical Association, the UK’s largest doctors’ union, voted to oppose the roll-out of Palantir’s systems in the NHS. The move follows our reporting on how hospitals across England are not using Palantir’s £330 million software.

Palantir also holds contracts with almost a dozen UK police forces—but the nature of this work remains shrouded in secrecy.

We’ve found that a dedicated policing unit is systematically instructing forces to withhold information about Palantir and its controversial technology.

Numerous Freedom of Information requests about Palantir contracts have been referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Central Referral Unit (CRU)—a secretive team previously linked to blocking information requests.

Documents we’ve obtained reveal that the CRU advised police forces to issue an “NCND”—a refusal to “neither confirm nor deny” any information “that may or may not be held in relation to Palantir software used for covert purposes.” In other words: say nothing, regardless.

And all this despite a policing ‘covenant’ that promises that “all use of AI will be subject to ‘maximum transparency by default’”.

Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch has lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), warning the CRU is breaching the spirit and potentially the letter of the FOI Act. They are calling for a full investigation.

Concerns about Palantir’s work with UK police are growing, Liberty Investigates recently revealed how Palantir has established a “real-time data-sharing network” with some forces that includes sensitive personal details of vulnerable victims, children and witnesses alongside suspects.

Details of such systems are routinely kept from public view. In both 2024 and 2025, multiple FOI requests about Palantir’s police contracts —including from Liberty and the Good Law Project—were referred to the CRU, which advised forces to withhold information.

Palantir has previously been accused of privacy violations and contributing to human rights abuses. This week it emerged that Stephen Miller - the architect of Trump’s brutal deportation strategy - holds up to $250,000 worth of shares in Palantir.

The CRU itself is no stranger to controversy. Earlier this year, it was dubbed an “authoritarian censor” after the BBC revealed it had reviewed more than 1,700 FOI requests in just three months.

Democracy for Sale has also reported how its own FOIs—on topics including officers disciplined for social media misconduct and police use of informants—were flagged to the CRU.

The CRU’s involvement in suppressing disclosures related to Palantir has intensified concerns about its reach and influence.

Big Brother Watch has written to the ICO urging a formal investigation into the CRU.

“The NPCC’s central FOI unit is a danger to transparency and the public’s right to know,” said Jake Hurfurt, head of investigations at the group. “We are seeing requests on topics known to be referred to the CRU delayed as police forces await instruction on how to proceed, and requester's names being used as reference numbers in spite of FOI being applicant blind and fears of negative press being used to justify disclosure being blocked.”

Hurfurt compared the CRU to the Cabinet Office’s now-defunct “Clearing House,” which Democracy for Sale journalists—then at openDemocracy—exposed for secretly vetting FOI requests and advising departments to withhold information.

Labour MP Phil Brickell told us that “anything which unnecessarily obstructs freedom of information requests undermines confidence."

“The police have a responsibility to be as transparent with the public as possible,” he added. “I look forward to their response to these allegations which, if true, raise serious cause for concern.”

An ICO spokesperson said that “there is nothing in FOI law that prevents public bodies like the police seeking advice from a central body… it is important, however, that any such function does not prevent public authorities from complying with statutory deadlines, or any other requirements, such as the requestor blind principle.”

The NPCC’s Central Referral Unit did not respond to a request for comment.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act—but 2024 was its worst on record. Just 29% of FOI requests to Whitehall departments and government agencies were answered in full—down from 34% in 2023, itself a historic low.

---

Speaking of American tech billionaires...

This week, Tory leadership hopeful Robert Jenrick raised eyebrows by declaring himself an ‘Anglofuturist’—a nebulous label previously confined to a fringe of the British right obsessed with AI, aesthetics, and Anglo identity.

Jenrick is even set to speak at a conference organised by something called the Anglofuturist Institute.

That name caught our attention. The ‘Institute’—which claims that “Anglo culture is shaped by a near-sacred bond with the land”—sounded more like a blog site than a bonafide think tank.

But here’s the thing: you can’t just call yourself an institute. It’s a protected term that requires official approval.

Had the Anglofuturists really got the green light from the Secretary of State to use the name?

We called Companies House, which regulates such terms. While they don’t comment on individual cases, a spokesperson confirmed that ‘Institute’ is one of the most sensitive words, and that “strict controls” apply to its use.

We wanted to ask the Anglofuturists whether they met Companies House’s criteria. Unfortunately, their website offers no contact details—though it does list a handful of “founders and fellows” with names like Ben Rebel and Yuri Chopwood, illustrated with stock photos, AI-generated images and Latin dummy text.

Perhaps Anglofuturist Jenrick can ask his new friends at the ‘Institute’ on our behalf....