# Tout exposed Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

Tout

Bristol and notts people - check your contacts, check your lists.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 22, 2010)

ffs.. he is on me contacts too.. and im based in Ireland!
I recognise his face....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

Cunt even looks like bono


----------



## rioted (Oct 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Cunt even looks like bono


Of course you'd have sussed him straight away. 

Not that you'd ever be in the position of being worth spying on.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 22, 2010)

That should go in the impressive policing thread. Extraordinary effort. Bit of a waste of time focusing on whiny anarchists, and obviously not the scariest group of ne'er do wells to infiltrate, but going deep undercover in any context for that long must be desperately tough.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 22, 2010)

Ah shit - I know him - and thought he was sound - nice guy etc. 

I know a few people who were very close to him - they must be feeling shit. 

Utterly gob smacked.

Used to take th episs out of his flash pick up and fancy climbing gear - now we know where the money came from. 

For all that - what a waste of police resources - the activists he infiltrated were hardly fucking PIRA. Woah - cos of his stirling work the state prevented a banner drop at a demo, a few office doors being super glued and someone cutting the fence at menwith hill.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 22, 2010)

Anyone who trusts a cunt who wears a hat like that needs to ask themselves some questions.


----------



## OneStrike (Oct 22, 2010)

I would hate to have considered him a friend, that must really hurt.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 23, 2010)

what a cunt. looks like a cunt tbf.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 23, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Anyone who trusts a cunt who wears a hat like that needs to ask themselves some questions.


 
i was just thinking the same!! And the other pic is WORSE!

at least Butchers has no need to worry, starting fights with similarly minded people on forums isn't an offence is it?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 23, 2010)

my mate was shagging the bird who went on to be high up in the BNP and leaked the list , i bet he's quite embarrassed, fuck knows what pillow talk !!
(This was animal rights in the 90's by the way, me mate isn't a nazi!)


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 23, 2010)

never trust a hippy


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 23, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> never trust a hippy


 
i don't even know if he could be described as a hippy - he looks like some twat who - like another poster suggested - would be into U2

Mind you keith Mann admitted in his book he had shocking musical taste too so ya never know i guess


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 23, 2010)

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/97970
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/97967


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 23, 2010)

i've just noticed in the hat pic, he was the perfect candidate to go undercover. One eye is looking at the person he's talking to - the other is watching what the others are up to!


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 23, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That should go in the impressive policing thread. Extraordinary effort. Bit of a waste of time focusing on whiny anarchists, and obviously not the scariest group of ne'er do wells to infiltrate, but going deep undercover in any context for that long must be desperately tough.


 
^ this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 23, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i've just noticed in the hat pic, he was the perfect candidate to go undercover. One eye is looking at the person he's talking to - the other is watching what the others are up to!


 
lol! He  actually is boss-eyed - we should have known....


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 23, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> lol! He  actually is boss-eyed - we should have known....


 
i would like to have seen him infiltrate Nick Griffin!!!!


----------



## Thora (Oct 23, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> never trust a hippy


 
Never trust someone just cos you need someone to drive the van!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 23, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i would like to have seen him infiltrate Nick Griffin!!!!


 
Erm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i would like to have seen him infiltrate Nick Griffin!!!!


 
That was allegedly Martin Webster's job.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2010)

Hmm, by all accounts this bloke would have been hanging around my circles back when I lived in Notts a few years back. Can't say I remember him though. I can only imagine how angry/cheated/betrayed I'd feel if he'd been a close friend of mine. I'm sure this guy is feeling pretty bad by now, but he should've thought of that before he decided to become pretty much the lowest form of life imaginable. I hope termites eat his balls.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 23, 2010)

did he always have long hair?

I'm trying to place him in my rather hazy memories from stirling.


----------



## Thora (Oct 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Hmm, by all accounts this bloke would have been hanging around my circles back when I lived in Notts a few years back. Can't say I remember him though. I can only imagine how angry/cheated/betrayed I'd feel if he'd been a close friend of mine. I'm sure this guy is feeling pretty bad by now, but he should've thought of that before he decided to become pretty much the lowest form of life imaginable. I hope termites eat his balls.


Why would you think he's feeling bad?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 23, 2010)

maybe bcaus he failed to get everyone nicked


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 23, 2010)

Maybe because he'd made genuine friendships or formed bonds with his friends and could have been conflicted. Like that film.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 23, 2010)

Because the subversives spotted that something was rotten in Denmark. He'd fallen from the high wire; seen the ball go out of reach after several years of keepy-uppy. I'm sure he's feeling pretty low.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 23, 2010)

Thora said:


> Why would you think he's feeling bad?


 
Wouldn't you?


----------



## Neutron (Oct 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tout
> 
> Bristol and notts people - check your contacts, check your lists.



This won't be the first anarchist freak to be a tout, and it certaily won't be the last.

The pigs luv youse.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 24, 2010)

And you know what? - he even talked like a cop! Bit of a whiny, john major sort of voice. 

Thing is I dont think he did a lot of policeing - he spent most of his time partying on, doing drugs, rock climbing, camping, and occasionally driving activists around. His actual effect in disrupting what people were doing - and what people were debating and arguing - was negligible. And he never was very political.
So on hand I think hes been on one almighty scam from work. You could almost admire that if it wasn't for the appalling hurt and betrayal he's caused to people who were close to him. 

Its impossible to justify this in terms of policing - deep undercover can surely only be justified when its nonce-rings or the mafia - but eco squatters? Utter waste of Money and resources and a serious assault on democracy, basic liberty etc.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 24, 2010)

Given he spent a decade doing it, I'm not sure he was trying to disrupt. More like gathering intelligence, surely.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 24, 2010)

An extraordinary story, if it's true. I would love to read the view of Detective-Boy, though I'm sure he's got more sense than to contribute!

If it is true, I wonder if the officer would be employable again on general police duties. As Kaka Tim said, he won't have got to do any proper policing for ten years. Would he need re-training? I can't see how ten years without a break could be good for his own welfare and family life. I'd also question how effective it can have been in terms of crimes prevented or detected, or intelligence gathered.  Us respectable taxpayers should be told.  However, the eco types shouldn't complain too much. They got a willing volunteer who did driving and seems to have offered social support and counselling. For free, on the rates. As to whether it is legitimate for the state to spy on people who on the face of it were conspiring to at least talk about vandalism, and possibly involved or linked to vile ALF crime, well yes. definitely. Turns out, though, that if what people here say is true, you were all basically nice people and all he's done is demonstrate your innocence and essential good natures, which must be nice.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> His actual effect in disrupting what people were doing - and what people were debating and arguing - was negligible.


Why do you assume that he was meant to disrupt anything? 



> Its impossible to justify this in terms of policing - deep undercover can surely only be justified when its nonce-rings or the mafia - but eco squatters? Utter waste of Money and resources and a serious assault on democracy, basic liberty etc.


The amount of disruption caused to normal economic, industrial and developmental activity by "eco squatters" over the last twenty or thirty years has been steadily growing and has merited intelligence gathering.  Infiltration is by far the most effective means of intelligence gathering and it's cost is repaid many times in the ability to properly understand, manage and respond to threats.


----------



## Random (Oct 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Given he spent a decade doing it, I'm not sure he was trying to disrupt. More like gathering intelligence, surely.


 
Sounds likely.

As for what he's doing now - surely he's going to be very useful in training the next generation of infiltrators? Or a career as a private security cunsultant on 'eco-terrorism' probably beckons


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

i don't know much about Eco Warriors but i would hardly have thought they're in the same league as the IRA or Al Queada?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> If it is true, I wonder if the officer would be employable again on general police duties.


I doubt it.  Deep undercover officers, particularly when their cover ends up being broken, often end up with mental health problems anyway.  Even short term undercover work is hugely risky for the individual officer and frequently causes some sort of stress / breakdown.  If he was to be re-deployed to ordinary policing, yes he would be re-trained (probably from scratch after ten years).


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i don't know much about Eco Warriors but i would hardly have thought they're in the same league as the IRA or Al Queada?


They're not ... but strangely enough in the real world things aren't all or nothing ...


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They're not ... but strangely enough in the real world things aren't all or nothing ...


 
but they were paying this geezer fuck knows how much - and probably others too - for 10 years!!!  Are they really that much of a threat? I don't even know what they DO?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I doubt it.  Deep undercover officers, particularly when their cover ends up being broken, often end up with mental health problems anyway.  Even short term undercover work is hugely risky for the individual officer and frequently causes some sort of stress / breakdown.  If he was to be re-deployed to ordinary policing, yes he would be re-trained (probably from scratch after ten years).


 
yeh, the stress of sitting round smoking weed, parties and going camping for ten fucking years must have been awful.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

wouldn't it be cheaper just to send some hard looking bastard round with a bar of soap and some clippers and say "I'll be back if you're still here next week" ?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i don't know much about Eco Warriors but i would hardly have thought they're in the same league as the IRA or Al Queada?



Well it examplifies amongst the other groups infilitrated, where the Police/state are very pro-active in protecting Big Business interests...


> " The Notts Indymedia collective can confirm that the following information is correct: Mark Kennedy, also known as Mark 'Stone' has been working as an undercover police officer from 2000 to at least the end of 2009. During this period he has been actively involved in various environmental, animal rights, anticapitalist and antifascist groups and campaigns. He lived in Nottingham and was a well-known face in the local activist community.



Updated Indy Article with some links to similar ops and advice....


----------



## discokermit (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> wouldn't it be cheaper just to send some hard looking bastard round with a bar of soap and some clippers and say "I'll be back if you're still here next week" ?


----------



## Random (Oct 24, 2010)

Where do they find people for this? The chap must have been a right oddball in the force


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

Random said:


> Where do they find people for this? The chap must have been a right oddball in the force


 
yeah you can imagine the odd one signing up to defeat terrorism or nazis or something but who thinks "I will infiltrate some hippies for 10 years" ????


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

if anyone's read books like Martin McGartland they'll see that anyone working for the security services just gets ditched (after they've outlived their use) or at set up to be killed anyway


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> if anyone's read books like Martin McGartland they'll see that anyone working for the security services just gets ditched (after they've outlived their use) or at set up to be killed anyway



or this dude







going






going






gone


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> Are they really that much of a threat? I don't even know what they DO?


Personally I think too much attention / concern has been applied to "eco squatters" ... but their actions have, over the past couple of decades, certainly put them firmly into the category where some intelligence gathering and monitoring is merited.  Infiltration would certainly be a usual part of that and, to some extent, would not be particularly excessive.  Whether it merits being continued for ten years I am less sure ... but there are always shortages of undercover resources and so someone somewhere will have been reviewing the situation and deciding that the intelligence obtained was worth the candle on a fairly regular basis.  Without knowing what that intelligence was, and what it enabled to be done, it is not possible to judge whether that decision was sound or not.  Part of the problem with intelligence is that it's success tends to be measured by what _doesn't_ happen and so it doesn't lend itself to obvious performance indicators.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

discokermit said:


> yeh, the stress of sitting round smoking weed, parties and going camping for ten fucking years must have been awful.


Whilst that might be nice if it is your _only_ life, it is a little more stressful if it is not!


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Whilst that might be nice if it is your _only_ life, it is a little more stressful if it is not!


 
indeed , he was actually getting paid to do it


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ...where the Police/state are very pro-active in protecting Big Business interests...


... AKA preventing crimes such as criminal damage, theft, violent disorder and assault ...

You imply that the police are protecting interests of Big Business which have no connection with crime at all.  Big Business' activities are legal (at least insofar as their day to day operations are concerned) and, as such, they are entitled to the protection of the law.  It is naive to think that the police shouldn't have a role in that.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

Random said:


> Where do they find people for this? The chap must have been a right oddball in the force


Most police undercover officers are selected from amongst normal officers, usually fairly young in service before they have done too much and become too well known, at least for deeper undercover deployments.  A few that I have met over the years have certainly been a little odd in one way or another!


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... AKA preventing crimes such as criminal damage, theft, violent disorder and assault ...
> 
> You imply that the police are protecting interests of Big Business which have no connection with crime at all.  Big Business' activities are legal (at least insofar as their day to day operations are concerned) and, as such, they are entitled to the protection of the law.  It is naive to think that the police shouldn't have a role in that.



Indeed . Theres a real danger these types might climb up a tree and play set of fucking pan pipes while wearing a funny peruvian style hat . Hence its worth diverting police resources and budgets to watching people do that while hoodies terrorise families to the extent they burn themselves and their disabled daughters to death because theyvveno prtection from a living hell.

Meanwhile big business is law abiding .


----------



## grit (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> yeah you can imagine the odd one signing up to defeat terrorism or nazis or something but who thinks "I will infiltrate some hippies for 10 years" ????


 
They dont sign up, the are picked.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

grit said:


> They dont sign up, the are picked.


 
aye i've read plenty of undercover books, i was just trying to be obnoxious. Still can't work out why anyone would do this for years, often putting themselves in danger, knowing full well that they are totally expendable and will be dropped as soon as it suits...


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Oct 24, 2010)

I take David Shayler at face value and believe he became an eco-squatter/transvestite/reincarnation of Christ after a genuine mental breakdown.

But I once read The Spy Who Came in From The Cold, and so part of me now wonders if he's really still sane and if he's actually working deep undercover as an incredible triple-bluff.

Here's a recent article about him: http://www.i-zeen.com/articles/From...=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+i-zeen/fBtH+(i-zeen)






And there was a brilliant interview with him in Vice, read it if you haven't already:

http://vice.typepad.com/vice_magazine/2009/08/david-shayler-reluctant-messiah-part-one.html
http://vice.typepad.com/vice_magazi...art-two-at-home-she-feels-like-a-tourist.html


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 24, 2010)

Jesus, it must be horrible for the people who were actually close to him. Madness.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 24, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> he went to public school didnt he ? hardly surprising


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 24, 2010)

Casually Red;11174625][QUOTE=i'mnotsofast said:


> he went to public school didnt he ? hardly surprising


 
watch it you'll get stalked worse than me!


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> watch it you'll get stalked worse than me!


 
Eh? Story?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2010)

I remember this bloke from the G8 in Scotland, and at various things after that, didn't know him other than to say hello to though.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... AKA preventing crimes such as criminal damage, theft, violent disorder and assault ...
> 
> You imply that the police are protecting interests of Big Business which have no connection with crime at all.  Big Business' activities are legal (at least insofar as their day to day operations are concerned) and, as such, they are entitled to the protection of the law.  It is naive to think that the police shouldn't have a role in that.



I don't imply... I state it as a fact...
On a recent visit to London, I noticed how Policed up the privileged areas of London were...... Is that preferential treatment? or an essential use of Police resources?
Of course the Police are honour bound to protect the privileged....... after all, they pull the strings...

btw: We all know how the blessed Police treat their own when they blow the whistle or tout on their own.....


----------



## grit (Oct 24, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> aye i've read plenty of undercover books, i was just trying to be obnoxious. Still can't work out why anyone would do this for years, often putting themselves in danger, knowing full well that they are totally expendable and will be dropped as soon as it suits...


 
They believe they are reducing the possibility of crimes being committed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> .
> 
> You imply that the police are protecting interests of Big Business which have no connection with crime at all.  Big Business' activities are legal (at least insofar as their day to day operations are concerned) and, as such, they are entitled to the protection of the law.  It is naive to think that the police shouldn't have a role in that.



Being spied on by the police flouts the idea of the 'protection of the law'. There aren't enough facepalms to express my contempt for this kind of spying on the 'enemy within'. This man and all like him, and you for that matter if you ever colluded with it, are the enemies of democracy.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> On a recent visit to London, I noticed how Policed up the privileged areas of London were...... Is that preferential treatment? or an essential use of Police resources?


Please do share your detailed analysis of the policing of London based on what you saw on your day trip and I'll try and explain whether it was "preferential treatment" or "an essential use of police resources" ... 

(For your information the richer Boroughs of London tend to have signficantly _less_ police resources than the poorer ones ... it is a constant bone of contention in my own Borough of Richmond upon Thames)


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 24, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Being spied on by the police flouts the idea of the 'protection of the law'. There aren't enough facepalms to express my contempt for this kind of spying on the 'enemy within'. This man and all like him, and you for that matter if you ever colluded with it, are the enemies of democracy.


Simplistic bollocks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 24, 2010)

No, snouts who infiltrate law-abiding democratic working class political organisations and movements are the enemies of democracy. Do they infiltrate the tories? Do they fuck.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Simplistic bollocks.


fair comment if you ask me.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... AKA preventing crimes such as criminal damage, theft, violent disorder and assault ...



utter cobblers - 
This is hippie activist types who so things like Super Glueing locks at various corporate hqs, planting trees, arranging banner drops in public spaces - and lots of gardening.  

'preventing violent disorder' my big fat hairy arse. 

Ten years paying a copper to go undercover - agasint a non-existant threat whihc resulted in a large number oif people getting seriously fucked over - for what?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 25, 2010)

Probibly who informed on the group that got caught in the the Iona School raid.Yet his information did nothing to prevent the massive Ratcliff-on-soar protest by Climate Camp later than year. The small group who got to the top of Didcot power station shows the limits of this kind of police in that if there are enough people interested in a cause and they are encouraged to act as small autonomous groups all the expense of a police informer is useless. Also the courts have not helped the police with juries siding with some of the worlds foremost scientists in cases like the Kingsnorth 6.

Shutting down powerstations has zero impact on the general public, they system is designed for sudden loss of powerstations. Were the courts do take a more hard line is interfering with rail as that impacts passenger trains. 

Of the 114 arrested in the Iona School raid, 26 have been charged and are awaiting trial in January 2011, they are charged with conspiracy to comit agravated trespass. 6 claim they had not decided to take part when the raid happened so are being charged for thinking about the action. 

The Climate Change Act of 2008 makes it UK law for the official target that by 2050 the UK will have cut its emissions by 80% of 1990 levels. It passed with an overwhelming majority.


----------



## agricola (Oct 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, snouts who infiltrate law-abiding democratic working class political organisations and movements are the enemies of democracy. Do they infiltrate the tories? Do they fuck.


 
why would they infiltrate movements many of them support already?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2010)

agricola said:


> why would they infiltrate movements many of them support already?


 
Precisely


----------



## paolo (Oct 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, snouts who infiltrate law-abiding democratic working class political organisations and movements are the enemies of democracy. Do they infiltrate the tories? Do they fuck.


 
If it was about the working class, they would have left the likes of Climate Camp alone.

It's not about class though, it's about perceived subversives.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> If it was about the working class, they would have left the likes of Climate Camp alone.
> 
> It's not about class though, it's about perceived subversives.


 
I wonder how many snouts are in the Libertarian Alliance?


----------



## paolo (Oct 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I wonder how many snouts are in the Libertarian Alliance?


 
Who the fuck are they?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Who the fuck are they?


 
They're the successful subversives


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 25, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> It's not about class though, it's about perceived subversives.


 Call me cynical but Id have said its about budgets and manufacturing threats that need dealing with hence dosh to deal with. Funny that the ACPO are the people who run the NETCU and advice business on how to deal with domestic extreamists and government how much dealing with them will cost are the same people who get boosts to there budgets when the threat level goes up.

Of course ACPO being a private company has no financial interest in hyping threats.


----------



## paolo (Oct 25, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Of course ACPO being a private company


 
Don't get me started on that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, snouts who infiltrate law-abiding democratic working class political organisations and movements are the enemies of democracy. Do they infiltrate the tories? Do they fuck.


 
exactly


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Simplistic bollocks.



This is nothing to do with protecting the 'general public', preventing terrorism or anything like that. This is the tracking and monitoring of anyone who forms an action group against anything, and the police use 'terrorism' as a catch-all justification for doing it. 

But they are just protecting their masters. They – you, mr detective-boy – are servants of anti-democratic forces; they – you, mr ex-dibble – are probably mostly too stupid to even understand how that is.

You give good people proper cause to hate you for what you've done, and you should start to question why you did it.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 25, 2010)

if your paranoid you could make a case that these people are dangerous would be terrorists look at some of the wibble posted on urban.
 if your into shagging hippy chicks probably a perfect front
 defend budget get to run "agents" probably even had dead letter drops complete waste of time and effort


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 25, 2010)

I imagine that the justification that would be given for an operation of this kind was that they would be looking for people involved in the sort of stuff that got a gang of animal terrorists jailed for up to six years, after a "difficult" five-year-long investigation, for serious and brutal crimes. 







I have no knowledge whether the person who is thought to have been an undercover police officer ever came close to rooting out this sort of thug, but if they were looking, I'd say it was entirely justifiable.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 26, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wouldn't you?


 
he sounds like he's got out without scratch after 10 years of getting paid good wack for living an alternative lifestyle / pissing it up etc ( according to accounts of his partying etc ), will now probably get sent off to a  job elsewhere in the force, and, I'm guessing he wouldnt have  let emotional shit get to him ( would a bit muggy to get all worked up about people you're grassing on !)  whats he got feel bad about, I'm confused ?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please do share your detailed analysis of the policing of London based on what you saw on your day trip and I'll try and explain whether it was "preferential treatment" or "an essential use of police resources" ...
> 
> (For your information the richer Boroughs of London tend to have signficantly _less_ police resources than the poorer ones ... it is a constant bone of contention in my own Borough of Richmond upon Thames)



so you are Paddick then ....jesus you're weird


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 26, 2010)

cantsin said:


> he sounds like he's got out without scratch after 10 years of getting paid good wack for living an alternative lifestyle / pissing it up etc ( according to accounts of his partying etc ), will now probably get sent off to a  job elsewhere in the force, and, I'm guessing he wouldnt have  let emotional shit get to him ( would a bit muggy to get all worked up about people you're grassing on !)  whats he got feel bad about, I'm confused ?


well you sound like you are tbh. i doubt whether he's got out "without a scratch"?  

he's stabbed a load of people, metaphorically, in the back who he pretended to befriend, he has no social life of any description anymore, he got a load of cash for doing so but it's all tainted by his previous activities, i'd imagine that he has trouble sleeping at night.

at least i hope he fucking does.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 26, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sure this guy is feeling pretty bad by now, but he should've thought of that before he decided to become pretty much the lowest form of life imaginable. I hope termites eat his balls.


 
The only thing he's likely feeling bad about is being exposed. I doubt he cares that much about the people/groups he was infiltrating.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 26, 2010)

cantsin said:


> he sounds like he's got out without scratch after 10 years of getting paid good wack for living an alternative lifestyle / pissing it up etc ( according to accounts of his partying etc ), will now probably get sent off to a  job elsewhere in the force, and, I'm guessing he wouldnt have  let emotional shit get to him ( would a bit muggy to get all worked up about people you're grassing on !)  whats he got feel bad about, I'm confused ?



You know what they'll like though - he claim emotional trauma and get a payout and pensioned off


----------



## TopCat (Oct 26, 2010)

Beware the activist who has access to a van and always has money for a pint!  In Class War back in the day we always seemed to have at least one full time plod in the group. Ian Bone used to joke that we would have never got to the point of selling 15,000 copies of the paper per issue without the plods help!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2010)

agricola said:


> why would they infiltrate movements many of them support already?


 
Surely as public 'servants' they should be politically neutral?


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 26, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> .



If ever their was an argument to eat meat, its the photos of this pasty faced bunch of fuckers.

/rickygervaisorsomesuchcomedian


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 26, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> If ever their was an argument to eat meat, its the photos of this pasty faced bunch of fuckers.
> 
> /rickygervaisorsomesuchcomedian


 
i very much doubt the old bill have a make up department


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 26, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is nothing to do with protecting the 'general public', preventing terrorism or anything like that.


Well done on totally missing the point I made.  I have not suggested that this is preventing terrorism or protecting the "general public".  I _have_ suggested that (a) it is dealing with actual crime (criminal damage, violent disorder, assault, etc depending on the situation) and (b) the victims of that are businesses going about their lawful business and thus entitled to the protection of the law just like the general public (members of whom make up their workforce incidentally ...).

You may take the view that the law should not protect businesses ... but it does and it would be entirely inappropriate for the police to unilaterally decide who the law does and does not apply to.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 26, 2010)

cantsin said:


> so you are Paddick then ....jesus you're weird


No, I'm not "Paddick".  What are you wittering on about?  And you say I'm weird ...


----------



## paolo (Oct 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Well done on totally missing the point I made.  I have not suggested that this is preventing terrorism or protecting the "general public".  I _have_ suggested that (a) it is dealing with actual crime (criminal damage, violent disorder, assault, etc depending on the situation) and (b) the victims of that are businesses going about their lawful business and thus entitled to the protection of the law just like the general public (members of whom make up their workforce incidentally ...).
> 
> You may take the view that the law should not protect businesses ... but it does and it would be entirely inappropriate for the police to unilaterally decide who the law does and does not apply to.


 
I'll first declare that I don't know exactly what groups he was infiltrating.

But, if it's the usual suspects, I'd raise the question of proportionality.

I doubt anyone is put on a ten year assignment to prevent a few broken windows.

If so, that could mean that the management decisions were based on:
(a) credible intelligence that far worse would happen
(b) a misunderstanding of the capability of these groups
(c) neither of the above, just a very long fishing trip.

I'm struggling to rationalise further, but maybe there's something I'm missing.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 26, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> But, if it's the usual suspects, I'd raise the question of proportionality.


That is certainly a question worth asking ... but I doubt very much that we will ever know enough to make a judgment about it!



> I doubt anyone is put on a ten year assignment to prevent a few broken windows.


They're not.  Undercover operations are expensive, dangerous and a nightmare to run over long periods.  They are not taken on lightly and they are constantly reviewed at senior levels.



> If so, that could mean that the management decisions were based on:
> (a) credible intelligence that far worse would happen
> (b) a misunderstanding of the capability of these groups
> (c) neither of the above, just a very long fishing trip.[.quote]
> My money would be on (a) in view of the length of time.  Whether it was "far" worse in absolute terms, or whether it was something considered "far" worse from the perspective of the police would be the proportionality question.  I would not be surprised to find that they were a bit prone to see bogeymen where there were not really any ... but against that there have certainly been incidents of damage, dirsuption, violence, etc. over the years which could well give credence to an argument that bad things happen that it is worthwhile trying to prevent or, at least, to maintain intelligenc sources to make sure that they are not getting any worse.  (b) may happen from time to time - and could have happened at some stages in this operation - but for it to be maintained over ten years is simply not credible.  There would have been _multiple_ reviews during that time and any number of senior officers responsible for deciding to continue it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Personally I think too much attention / concern has been applied to "eco squatters" ... but their actions have, over the past couple of decades, certainly put them firmly into the category where some intelligence gathering and monitoring is merited.  Infiltration would certainly be a usual part of that and, to some extent, would not be particularly excessive.  Whether it merits being continued for ten years I am less sure ... but there are always shortages of undercover resources and so someone somewhere will have been reviewing the situation and deciding that the intelligence obtained was worth the candle on a fairly regular basis.  Without knowing what that intelligence was, and what it enabled to be done, it is not possible to judge whether that decision was sound or not.  Part of the problem with intelligence is that it's success tends to be measured by what _doesn't_ happen and so it doesn't lend itself to obvious performance indicators.


 
Eco warriors or whatever, pose a risk here, mostly through the practice of tree-spiking.  When loggers are cutting the tree with chainsaws and the saw encounters the buried spike, the saw kicks back out of the tree and onto the unsuspecting logger.


----------



## paolo (Oct 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Eco warriors or whatever, pose a risk here, mostly through the practice of tree-spiking.  When loggers are cutting the tree with chainsaws and the saw encounters the buried spike, the saw kicks back out of the tree and onto the unsuspecting logger.


 
You're massively out of context on this JC.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2010)

No, we have _loads_ of eco-warrior logging casualties here


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 26, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> You're massively out of context on this JC.


 
Reel your neck in: it's a comment made by comparison.


----------



## paolo (Oct 27, 2010)

There's also a (d).

Operational convenience, for want of a better phrase.

Knowing that there'll be one or two significant protests a year, one decides to get a heads up. No specific crime in mind, more a case of minimising embarrassment. Noone, in their job, likes to look caught out.

I'm possibly imagining something that doesn't - with force divisions - actually work in practice, in this specific case. Or maybe it does. (was he assigned by a force, or a central unit?)


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> it would be entirely inappropriate for the police to unilaterally decide who the law does and does not apply to.


 Like the killer of Mr Tomlinson?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You may take the view that the law should not protect businesses ... but it does and it would be entirely inappropriate for the police to unilaterally decide who the law does and does not apply to.



I've often wondered about this. I've had mates who did no more than smoke a bit of weed who have had the old bill breaking down their door for it. A pub I used to frequent in Mile End got closed down and the landlady (incorrectly) accused of dealing coke because a few likely lads liked a sniff on the premises (unbeknown to her). I've lost count of the number of underground parties I've seen or heard about being raided.

The square mile has a huge cocaine problem. Where are the busts?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2010)

the bbc runs on the stuff as do west end theatres


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2010)

Where are the raids?


----------



## spartacus mills (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I doubt it.  Deep undercover officers, particularly when their cover ends up being broken, often end up with mental health problems anyway.



Ahhh, early retirement and a big fat pay-off then. Poor fella...


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Simplistic bollocks.


err, no, the rights of the individual not to be under constant surveillance, and the limits that should be placed on police activities of that sort, which is IMO one of the key dividing lines between a free democratic society and a state of tyranny. It's all about the rights and feelings of the individual - and eco-squatters in this regard have as many rights as (say) Sir Alan Sugar, or you, or I.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I doubt it.  Deep undercover officers, particularly when their cover ends up being broken, often end up with mental health problems anyway.


i think you'll find it's not just undercover officers who end up with mental health problems.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> Us respectable taxpayers should be told.


ermm, which disrespectable taxpayers did you have in mind


> . As to whether it is legitimate for the state to spy on people who on the face of it were conspiring to at least talk about vandalism, and possibly involved or linked to vile ALF crime, well yes. definitely.


wot, worth a personal cop plant for *10 years*??? Eco-squatters are pretty harmless in truth


> Turns out, though, that if what people here say is true, you were all basically nice people and all he's done is demonstrate your innocence and essential good natures, which must be nice.


Oh what a surprise, a supporter of the party which spent a decade trampling on our civil liberties turns out not to have the first f-ing clue about them...


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Reel your neck in: it's a comment made by comparison.


a comparison made fairly redundant by a distance of c. 7000 miles and the far greater logging industry in Canada than the UK!


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

agricola said:


> why would they infiltrate movements many of them support already?


even if they do (Which I don't believe; show me a copper and I'll show you a blind adorer of the Status Quo), they'd do it cos they're cops, which means a professional lifetime of seeing things in black-and-white lawupholder-lawbreaker terms


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> even if they do (Which I don't believe; show me a copper and I'll show you a blind adorer of the Status Quo), they'd do it cos they're cops, which means a professional lifetime of seeing things in black-and-white lawupholder-lawbreaker terms


 
but even t j hooker said there was no black and white just a million shades of grey. and he was a copper.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> but even t j hooker said there was no black and white just a million shades of grey. and he was a copper.



ah yes, right, ooo-kay


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Don't get me started on that.


As I have repeatedly said, the fact that it is a private company is nothing at all to do with it being a money-making concern and it is purely a means of carrying out the functions that they now have in an appropriate manner - anyone involved with an unincorporated association (which it was previously) will tell you that ALL their legal advice is to become an incorporated entity (i.e. a company) to avoid personal liability of all the members in the case of any legal action (this advice has been pushed out to sports clubs, social clubs, etc. for about ten years now).

Whilst I agree it is not ideal and whilst I think a better solution should be found, it is NOT the scandal that people perceive it as.

To quote the President of ACPO, Hugh Orde, from a letter in Police Review (24 September): "As far as ACPO's limited company status goes, I went on the record when I became ACPO president and have repeated it regularly since: I am deeply uncomfortable with it and we need an open and transparent structure the public understand, the sooner the better.  In the meantime, it is a practical arrangement for taking on people and premises and one that does not affect our commitment to the police service in any way".  As I understand it, although there are limited requirements on publicing information to do with a limited company's accounts, activities, etc. ACPO voluntarily publishes far more.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, we have _loads_ of eco-warrior logging casualties here


There HAVE been instances of tree-spiking here (and other actions intended to greatly increase the physical risks to police officers, bailiffs or others lawfully removing protestors), though I haven't heard of tree-spiking specifically for some years.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Knowing that there'll be one or two significant protests a year, one decides to get a heads up. No specific crime in mind, more a case of minimising embarrassment. Noone, in their job, likes to look caught out.


There's _definitely_ a desire not to get "caught out" ... but because to get caught out means (a) people get hurt; (b) things get damaged; (c) massive disruption is caused and (d) the costs of managing the protests is massivley higher that it would otherwise be.  Whilst not wanting to be embarassed is in there too it is _way_ down the list ...


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As I have repeatedly said, the fact that it is a private company is nothing at all to do with it being a money-making concern and it is purely a means of carrying out the functions that they now have in an appropriate manner - anyone involved with an unincorporated association (which it was previously) will tell you that ALL their legal advice is to become an incorporated entity (i.e. a company) to avoid personal liability of all the members in the case of any legal action (this advice has been pushed out to sports clubs, social clubs, etc. for about ten years now).
> 
> Whilst I agree it is not ideal and whilst I think a better solution should be found, it is NOT the scandal that people perceive it as.
> 
> To quote the President of ACPO, Hugh Orde, from a letter in Police Review (24 September): "As far as ACPO's limited company status goes, I went on the record when I became ACPO president and have repeated it regularly since: I am deeply uncomfortable with it and we need an open and transparent structure the public understand, the sooner the better.  In the meantime, it is a practical arrangement for taking on people and premises and one that does not affect our commitment to the police service in any way".  As I understand it, although there are limited requirements on publicing information to do with a limited company's accounts, activities, etc. ACPO voluntarily publishes far more.


what would you have instead, and why does ACPO have this need that many other Professional Associations (Eg FDA) don't seem to have


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Like the killer of Mr Tomlinson?


As I have posted a million times, the law DOES apply to the officer involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson.  He HAS been subjected to it.  The decision about proceedings has been made by the IPCC (independent of the police) and the CPS (independent of the police) and NOT by the police.  

The fact that the decision does not accord with the one your prejudices desire does not alter that fact.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The square mile has a huge cocaine problem. Where are the busts?


That is a very good question.  The first place should actually be the newsrooms of The News of the World and The Sun ... knock the smug, hypocritical grins off their pathetic faces.

The issue is that places with regular drug use only come to police notice when information is received.  This means that activity in public places (which includes pubs and clubs when open) can be observed by routine police activity and lots of people who may have some motive for grassing them up.  Compared to the number of cases in which drugs are used regularly in private places, I would suggest that the number of police raids is disappearingly small and will usually only be when there is a known history of drug misuse, some connection with dealing or some other activity or where the activity has attracted the attention of neighbours who have grassed them up.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As I have posted a million times, the law DOES apply to the officer involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson.  He HAS been subjected to it.  The decision about proceedings has been made by the IPCC (independent of the police) and the CPS (independent of the police) and NOT by the police.
> 
> The fact that the decision does not accord with the one your prejudices desire does not alter that fact.



The IPCC and the CPS are about as independent of the police as your brain is from your arse.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Where are the raids?


http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/?gclid=COLqzo6Q86QCFdD92AodlS7ohw

If you have the necessary information, start the ball rolling now ...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> err, no, the rights of the individual not to be under constant surveillance...


Er, yes.  There is no right "not to be under constant surveillance".  There is a right to privacy.  That can be breached in defined circumstances (as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights written in, er, the 50s).  In extreme cases that _may_ include 24/7 surveillance.

But "constant surveillance" was not what was being referred to in the post that I referred to as "simplistic bollocks" - that was just _any_ sort of police surveillance.  Which, as I said, is simplistic bollocks.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> ... which means a professional lifetime of seeing things in black-and-white lawupholder-lawbreaker terms


Is that not, at least in part, an inevitable consequence of them being given a duty to apply the law impartially?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> what would you have instead, and why does ACPO have this need that many other Professional Associations (Eg FDA) don't seem to have


That's the point - there are only a limited number of forms that a corporate entity can have.  I suspect they decided to do it when they needed to take on premises or employ people for the first time and so it became _way_ more likely that there would one day be legal proceedings (in an Employment Tribunal if nowhere else).

What's the FDA?  The Food and Drug Administration?  That's a government agency.


----------



## Onket (Oct 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The square mile has a huge cocaine problem. Where are the busts?


 
Saw this fairly recently on the news- http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-city-bar-that-sold-cocaine-with-cocktails.do


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The IPCC and the CPS are about as independent of the police as your brain is from your arse.


The fact is that they ARE independent of the police.  There may well be issues about that ... but the fact is that they are independent and, more importantly, it is a matter for government, not the police that they are as they are and not something else.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What's the FDA?  The Food and Drug Administration?  That's a government agency.


Noooo! The First Division Association, ther senior civil servants union. closest comparison I could find. rtho' equally, any senior professional body such as RCS etc


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Noooo! The First Division Association, ther senior civil servants union. closest comparison I could find. rtho' equally, any senior professional body such as RCS etc


Oh right - I'd not realised they'd acronymned themselves!!!  

I don't know how unions are structured.  It would not surprise me to find out that there was some sort of incorporated entity behind them that acts as the actual employer of staff, tenant or owner of premises or whatever.  But there may be some special structure that unions have available to them.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Is that not, at least in part, an inevitable consequence of them being given a duty to apply the law impartially?


Yes, It may well be (though I don't think you do _always_ apply the law impartially), and that's where the real problem with the police lies IMO. Protesters, activists, strike pickets etc are not common criminals; they are people who care deeply about the issues in question, and are in their minds expressing active citizenship as it should be addressed, to defend their communities, or working rights, or simply to make the world a better place. That's a world away from yer average mugger, or even rioter.
FAR too often - and I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this with my own eyes - the whole approach of the police to such politically-charged situations is to act as if the protesters (or whatever) are criminals, and The Enemy. That, I would say, isn the root cause of all trouble I have seen on demoes, pickets etc; that and the wild over-reaction it seems to lead the police to take (and no, I'm not saying us protesters are whiter than white. We have our idiots.)


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> FAR too often - and I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this with my own eyes - the whole approach of the police to such politically-charged situations is to act as if the protesters (or whatever) are criminals, and The Enemy.


I have agreed with that many times before.  There have undoubtedly been occasions when those intent on serious crime and disorder have taken advantage of lawful protest but the police definitely did get into the mindset where they strated to treat all protestors as if they were a potential serious threat.  That has been acknowledged in Denis O'Connor's report on G20 and there is no a distinct emphasis on them facilitating lawful protest wherever they can (I have seen it at first hand, having been involved with the Anti-Pope protest outside St Mary's College in Twickenham when he visited recently).  I would suggest that the problem started with the activities of the "idiots" you acknowledge exist within protest movements (and, more importantly, with the out and out thugs and criminals wh use protest as a cover for simple crime -smashing the windows of Macdonalds may be an act of protest ... but carrying aways armfuls of consumer goodies from department stores when there is still protesting to be done???) who sort of "spoilt it for us all".  

Hopefully we are now back a lot closewr to where we were twenty or more years ago, where police _reacted_ to problems rather than acting excessively robustly in anticipation of them (though there will remain a role for preventative tactics where there is clear intelligence or other grounds to anticipate serious problems - e.g. banning EDL marches in Bradford).


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/?gclid=COLqzo6Q86QCFdD92AodlS7ohw
> 
> If you have the necessary information, start the ball rolling now ...



Good plan.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The fact is that they ARE independent of the police.  There may well be issues about that ... but the fact is that they are independent and, more importantly, it is a matter for government, not the police that they are as they are and not something else.



No one believes that the IPCC nor the CPS are independent of the police. Apart from apologists for police murderers like yourself. When they were set up (the IPCC) Liberty objected strongly to the lack of any statutory requirement for the IPCC to be independent of the police. The murders of both Charles de Mendez and Ian Tomlinson totally destroyed any credibility that either organisation had and any claim to be independent of the police. http://tiny.cc/4z3vp


----------



## moon23 (Oct 27, 2010)

He should write a book, it would be quite interesting to read.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

TopCat said:


> No one believes that the IPCC nor the CPS are independent of the police.


Change it then - the police aren't stopping you.

The simple point that you are apparently incapable of grasping is that whatever the faults of the IPCC and the CPS, they are not the fault of the police because the police didn't invent them, government did.  If you've got a problem slag off the relevant target, don;t just pander to your prejudices by blaming the polioce for something that is not their responsibility and which is entirely beyond their ability to change.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Change it then - the police aren't stopping you.
> 
> The simple point that you are apparently incapable of grasping is that whatever the faults of the IPCC and the CPS, they are not the fault of the police because the police didn't invent them, government did.  If you've got a problem slag off the relevant target, don;t just pander to your prejudices by blaming the polioce for something that is not their responsibility and which is entirely beyond their ability to change.


 
They are all pigs eating from the same trough. Indistinguishable.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 27, 2010)

TopCat said:


> They are all pigs eating from the same trough. Indistinguishable.


 
No there is a point here, really though I would have thought ACPO had more of an influence than CPS etc in this area of tackling 'domestic extremism'. It’s the large quasi-state police bodies that influence these things.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 27, 2010)

TopCat said:


> They are all pigs eating from the same trough. Indistinguishable.


Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed analysis.  I am sure everyone is very grateful for your insight.


----------



## Onket (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed analysis.  I am sure everyone is very grateful for your insight.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed analysis.  I am sure everyone is very grateful for your insight.


 
You could use this as your general fuck off euphemism Like Private Eye with Ugandan discussions.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 27, 2010)

lol


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2010)

Look, it's quite simple for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet.

The police as an entity and the vast majority of serving coppers hate any vaguely leftish or activisty type person, they think we're all freaks, weirdos, and commie scum. As well as being actually paid to screw us, they generally don't have any ethical qualms about doing so - because they think we're cunts.

In return we think they're cunts. 

We have no need to pretend to try and understand each other's motives. 

Let's just be upfront about it. We hate you, you hate us, and furthemore you're sometimes employed to spy on us and fuck us up.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2010)

Right about now NWA court is in full effect.
Judge Dre presiding in the case of NWA versus the police department.
Prosecuting attourneys are MC Ren Ice Cube and Eazy muthafuckin E.
Order order order. Ice Cube take the muthafuckin stand.
Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothin but the truth so help your black ass?

Why don't you tell everybody what the fuck you gotta say?

Fuck tha police
Comin straight from the underground
Young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority

Fuck that shit, cuz I ain't tha one
For a punk muthafucka with a badge and a gun
To be beatin on, and throwin in jail
We could go toe to toe in the middle of a cell

Fuckin with me cuz I'm a teenager
With a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin my car, lookin for the product
Thinkin every nigga is sellin narcotics

You'd rather see me in the pen
Then me and Lorenzo rollin in the Benzo
Beat tha police outta shape
And when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter
Still can't swallow bread and water

I don't know if they fags or what
Search a nigga down and grabbin his nuts
And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none
But don't let it be a black and a white one
Cuz they slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop

Ice Cube will swarm
On any muthafucka in a blue uniform
Just cuz I'm from the CPT, punk police are afraid of me
A young nigga on a warpath
And when I'm finished, it's gonna be a bloodbath
Of cops, dyin in LA
Yo Dre, I got somethin to say

Fuck the police (4X)

M. C. Ren, will you please give your testimony to the jury about this fucked up incident.>

Fuck tha police and Ren said it with authority
because the niggaz on the street is a majority.
A gang, is with whoever I'm stepping
and the motherfuckin' weapon
is kept in a stash box, for the so-called law
wishin' Ren was a nigga that they never saw

Lights start flashin behind me
But they're scared of a nigga so they mace me to blind me
But that shit don't work, I just laugh
Because it gives em a hint not to step in my path

To the police I'm sayin fuck you punk
Readin my rights and shit, it's all junk
Pullin out a silly club, so you stand
With a fake assed badge and a gun in your hand

But take off the gun so you can see what's up
And we'll go at it punk, I'ma fuck you up

Make ya think I'm a kick your ass
But drop your gat, and Ren's gonna blast
I'm sneaky as fuck when it comes to crime
But I'm a smoke em now, and not next time

Smoke any muthafucka that sweats me
Or any assho that threatens me
I'm a sniper with a hell of a scope
Takin out a cop or two, they can't cope with me

The muthafuckin villian that's mad
With potential to get bad as fuck
So I'm a turn it around
Put in my clip, yo, and this is the sound
Ya, somethin like that, but it all depends on the size of the gat

Takin out a police would make my day
But a nigga like Ren don't give a fuck to say

Fuck the police (4X)


Police, open now. We have a warrant for Eazy-E's arrest.
Get down and put your hands up where I can see em.
Just shut the fuck up and get your muthafuckin ass on the floor.
[huh?]>

and tell the jury how you feel abou this bullshit.>

I'm tired of the muthafuckin jackin
Sweatin my gang while I'm chillin in the shackin
Shining tha light in my face, and for what
Maybe it's because I kick so much butt

I kick ass, or maybe cuz I blast
On a stupid assed nigga when I'm playin with the trigga
Of any Uzi or an AK
Cuz the police always got somethin stupid to say

They put up my picture with silence
Cuz my identity by itself causes violence
The E with the criminal behavior
Yeah, I'm a gansta, but still I got flavor

Without a gun and a badge, what do ya got?
A sucka in a uniform waitin to get shot,
By me, or another nigga.
and with a gat it don't matter if he's smarter or bigger
[MC Ren: Sidle him, kid, he's from the old school, fool]

And as you all know, E's here to rule
Whenever I'm rollin, keep lookin in the mirror
And there's no cue, yo, so I can hear a
Dumb muthafucka with a gun

And if I'm rollin off the 8, he'll be tha one
That I take out, and then get away
And while I'm drivin off laughin
This is what I'll say

Fuck the police (4X)


The jury has found you guilty of bein a redneck,
whitebread, chickenshit muthafucka.
Wait, that's a lie. That's a goddamn lie.
I want justice! I want justice!
Fuck you, you black muthafucka!>

Fuck the police (3X)


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2010)

_You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need.
You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street,
You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed.
And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight,
You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking.

And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.

You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder.
You know it's going to get harder, and harder, and harder as you
get older.
And in the end you'll pack up and fly down south,
Hide your head in the sand,
Just another sad old man,
All alone and dying of cancer.

And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown.
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone.
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw 
around.
So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone,
Dragged down by the stone.

I gotta admit that I'm a little bit confused.
Sometimes it seems to me as if I'm just being used.
Gotta stay awake, gotta try and shake off this creeping malaise.
If I don't stand my own ground, how can I find my way out of this
maze?

Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending
That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend.
And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner
And everything's done under the sun,
And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer.

Who was born in a house full of pain.
Who was trained not to spit in the fan.
Who was told what to do by the man.
Who was broken by trained personnel.
Who was fitted with collar and chain.
Who was given a pat on the back.
Who was breaking away from the pack.
Who was only a stranger at home.
Who was ground down in the end.
Who was found dead on the phone.
Who was dragged down by the stone.
_


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 27, 2010)

But in the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 27, 2010)

*Irish Visits...*

Touts visits to Ireland (from Indy.ie)


> he visited the rossport solidarity camp in mayo a few times, but would not have picked up much information as things were very quiet each time i remember him visiting. he brought the saving iceland people over to talk in mayo as well. back in 2004 or 2005 he was at the eyfa wintermeeting in co. clare where a lot of irish antiwar activists were present.
> he was also around in 2006 at the anarchist bookfair and mayday.


----------



## where to (Oct 27, 2010)

why would they be interested in such activities in Ireland/ Iceland?

free holiday for him?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 27, 2010)

I would presume building his 'cred' and networks...
Im wondering though the legal implications of a British poliice officer operating within Ireland?
I knew i recognised the fecker from somewhere....


----------



## moon23 (Oct 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Look, it's quite simple for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet.
> 
> The police as an entity and the vast majority of serving coppers hate any vaguely leftish or activisty type person, they think we're all freaks, weirdos, and commie scum. As well as being actually paid to screw us, they generally don't have any ethical qualms about doing so - because they think we're cunts.
> 
> ...


 
If the aim of the lefty activist types is to bring about political change and create a new society then they have to engage with the police. Otherwise you are simply setting yourself up in antithesis. 

I think you underestimate also how many police take pride in their neutrality with regards to enforcing the law of the land impartially. The patience and professionalism of police in this country is often startling when compared with many other countries. When things go wrong it’s often the exception rather than the norm. 

I speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of police brutality when things do go wrong, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they are all perfect by any means.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If the aim of the lefty activist types is to bring about political change and create a new society then they have to engage with the police. Otherwise you are simply setting yourself up in antithesis.
> 
> I think you underestimate also how many police take pride in their neutrality with regards to enforcing the law of the land impartially. The patience and professionalism of police in this country is often startling when compared with many other countries. When things go wrong it’s often the exception rather than the norm.
> 
> I speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of police brutality when things do go wrong, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they are all perfect by any means.



I hate Libdems far more than I do the police.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of police brutality when things do go wrong, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they are all perfect by any means.


 i'm sure i speak for us all when i say that in your case i suspect provocation on your part.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I hate Libdems far more than I do the police.


 
I suspect you hate a lot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I suspect you hate a lot.


 
it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it


----------



## moon23 (Oct 28, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure i speak for us all when i say that in your case i suspect provocation on your part.


 
I was at a sit-down protest and the police tried to drag off and arrest someone next to me. I threw my arms around their waist and a tug of war commenced during which I was pepper sprayed and hit with a baton. They didn't manage to arrest her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I was at a sit-down protest and the police tried to drag off and arrest someone next to me. I threw my arms around their waist and a tug of war commenced during which I was pepper sprayed and hit with a baton. They didn't manage to arrest her.


 
that'll learn you


----------



## moon23 (Oct 28, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> that'll learn you


 
Yes not to sit down.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

TopCat said:


> You could use this as your general fuck off euphemism Like Private Eye with Ugandan discussions.


Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed analysis. I am sure everyone is very grateful for your insight.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Look, it's quite simple for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet.
> 
> The police as an entity and the vast majority of serving coppers hate any vaguely leftish or activisty type person, they think we're all freaks, weirdos, and commie scum. As well as being actually paid to screw us, they generally don't have any ethical qualms about doing so - because they think we're cunts.
> 
> ...


Now that is thoughtful and detailed analysis!  And I am sure everyone will be very grateful for your insight!  

(Whilst your broad point is probably accurate, you would be surprised how many individual officers and, insofar as the organisation can have beliefs itself, do not have any particular animosity towards "vaguely leftish or activisty type" people.)


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> brought the saving iceland people over to talk in mayo as well


Is this some sort of bizarre grocery retail reference ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Let's just be upfront about it. We hate you, you hate us, and furthemore you're sometimes employed to spy on us and fuck us up.


 
But only they are allowed to beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it. It's almost understandable that the police eschew morality (in fact it's probably a requirement when your job is to uphold a version of right and wrong which changes regularly according to the political climate; anyone with their own moral code would surely be unable to cope with that) but I cannot and will not forgive them for refusing to display any kind of sportsmanship. So the plod can use our generally trusting, open-hearted nature against us, well clever them. I hope they sleep well at night knowing that they've helped keep nobody safe from anything and debased themselves utterly in the process.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Look, it's quite simple for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet.
> 
> The police as an entity and the vast majority of serving coppers hate any vaguely leftish or activisty type person, they think we're all freaks, weirdos, and commie scum. As well as being actually paid to screw us, they generally don't have any ethical qualms about doing so - because they think we're cunts.
> 
> ...


 

As a marxist, I cannot possibly disagree with that. However, I've met more than a few cops (Admittedly, in non-protest situations) who I've ended up having respect for, and my problem here is, I Believe firmly that in a post-revolutionary situation, we will STILL need a police force. So - who will our 'bastards' be?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (Whilst your broad point is probably accurate, you would be surprised how many individual officers and, insofar as the organisation can have beliefs itself, do not have any particular animosity towards "vaguely leftish or activisty type" people.)



I'd almost rather the police _did_ universally hate us tbh. Better that than have them spend all their time giving us shit simply because they'd been told to. The fact is that from our point of view if the bloke at the top of the piggy pyramid hates us then, effectively, every single pig hates us. If you follow orders blindly then your personal opinions and your personal standards count for shit and you may just as well not have any.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Is this some sort of bizarre grocery retail reference ...


no. Summat to do with protest in Ireland. What with yer man being Irish, an that..


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Im wondering though the legal implications of a British poliice officer operating within Ireland?


It is not unusual for undercover officers to be deployed a long way from where they originated.  That may be because there is less chance of them meeting anyone who they stopped for speeding last week when they were still in uniform or it may be because crime doesn't respect boundaries and in order to effectively continue the purpose of the deployment it is necessary to travel.  It may also be because the undercover officer is in the best position to assist another force with an enquiry that they have commenced, it often being more effective to make use of an existing resource than invent an entirely new one.

It would usually be the case that cross-border deployment would be within the same legal jurisdiction ... but it is fairly common for cross border activity to take place between England and Scotland (and Scotland has what is effectively a seperate legal jurisdiction) and it _may_ sometimes take place across international boundaries.  If it does there is a formal process by which the criminal justice agency of one jurisdiction can seek the assistance of the criminal justice agencies of another, including the authorisation of police officers from one jurisdiction to operate in the other.  This does not provide the officers with police powers in the other jurisdiction and they would always operate under the overall control of the criminal justice agencies of the other jurisdiction.  If you think about it this is now commonly done even in uniformed policing (e.g. football spotters deployed in uniform in foreign jurisdictions).

Any operations by the police of one jurisdiction in the territory of another jurisdiction without formal approval would be treated as a (relatively serious) diplomatic incident.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> But only they are allowed to beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it.


But they are _not_ allowed to "beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it".  They mainly have ONLY the same rights to use force as anyone else: in self-defence or defence of another; to prevent crime or to make a lawful arrest.  The owners of private property have an additional right that the police _don't_ have (to eject a trespasser).  (There are a few situations, associated with the carrying out of authorised actions that would only apply to the police, such as the taking of fingerprints after arrest and various other powers under PACE, where the police have powers not available to the general public, but they are not often the ones being used in the _vast_ majority of cases).  In every case the force used, as for the public, must be "reasonable and necessary".

If they use any force when they have no legal power to they are investigated, charged and prosecuted.  If they use excessive force when they have a legal power to use some, likewise.

The only reason that you perceive that they are somehow not subject to the law is that the vast majority of cases (but by no means all) in which force is used (especially in the preventing of crime or making of arrests) it is the police who are involved.  And the main reason that there are few convictions is that they almost always have a lawful right to use _some_ force and the amount used is rarely so excessive as to clearly merit conviction in an area where the law requires judgement to be made on the basis of what the person using the force honestly believed at the time (even if it turns out to be wrong) and acknowledges that it is not possible to weigh to a nicety the amount of force being used.  Thus, as the vast majority of officers are usually trying their best to do their job properly and lawfully in difficult and often confused circumstances there are not going to be many convictions.

You are looking at an outcome (relatively few (but by no means no) convictions of the police for using excessive force) and concluding that it means one thing (the police are above the law) when in fact exactly the same outcome would arise from another thing (the police usually acting within the law).

(in moon23's example, by the way, there was certainly power to use some force (she was obstructing them in making an arrest) but whether or not being pepper-sprayed / batoned was "reasonable and necessary" is less clear.)


----------



## LiamO (Oct 28, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no. Summat to do with protest in Ireland. What with yer man being Irish, an that..



Who is Irish then? 

AKA? 

The tout? 

db?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But they are _not_ allowed to "beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it".  They mainly have ONLY the same rights to use force as anyone else: in self-defence or defence of another; to prevent crime or to make a lawful arrest.


 
Under which of those headings would you place a baton charge?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you follow orders blindly then your personal opinions and your personal standards count for shit and you may just as well not have any.


But they don't.  They follow orders where those orders are lawful.  But that is nowhere near the same as hating any particular group because the Chief Constable hates them.   

(And please do provide evidence of any Chief Constable putting out some sort of memo to the effect "I hate all these lefty scum.  You must hate them too" ... or do they manage the thoughts and beliefs of their officers by some sort of mind control ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no. Summat to do with protest in Ireland. What with yer man being Irish, an that..


* whoosh *

(Saving(s). Iceland (as in Mum's gone to...).  Mayo(naisse) ...  )


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 28, 2010)

I remember David Baddiel talking about being arrested after some protest or other and being basically pinged about from one cop to another being punched and kicked while handcuffed in the back of a police van. As he said, normally if you are assaulted like that you go to the police, but what do you do when it's the police doing it to you?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But they don't.  They follow orders where those orders are lawful.  But that is nowhere near the same as hating any particular group because the Chief Constable hates them.
> 
> (And please do provide evidence of any Chief Constable putting out some sort of memo to the effect "I hate all these lefty scum.  You must hate them too" ... or do they manage the thoughts and beliefs of their officers by some sort of mind control ...)



I think James Anderton may have had one or two notions in that direction...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Under which of those headings would you place a baton charge?


Usually the prevention of crime.  Sometimes defence of another.  If associated with snatch squads, maybe making of an arrest.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> I remember David Baddiel talking about being arrested after some protest or other and being basically pinged about from one cop to another being punched and kicked while handcuffed in the back of a police van. As he said, normally if you are assaulted like that you go to the police, but what do you do when it's the police doing it to you?


Are you sure he wasn't arrested for crimes against comedy?  

(And the answer is that you complain.  Complaints that have been made have resulted in CCTV being fitted in many police vehicles now.  And the introduction of the IPCC so that you can complain to someone other than the police.)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You are looking at an outcome (relatively few (but by no means no) convictions of the police for using excessive force) and concluding that it means one thing (the police are above the law) when in fact exactly the same outcome would arise from another thing (the police usually acting within the law).



Your point would be a good one in the absence of any evidence other than the number of police convictions. Sadly I have not only read newspapers I have also met police officers and observed their behaviour.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I think James Anderton may have had one or two notions in that direction...


Fair point.  I should have said ... any SANE Chief Constable ...

(And the amount of criticism he got, and the extent to which his proclamations were ignored, within his own force is testament to the fact that police officers do _not_ blindly hate the people the Chief tells them to hate!)


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sadly I have not only read newspapers I have also met police officers and observed their behaviour.


Er ... so have I.  On _many_ more occasions than you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Usually the prevention of crime.


 
Interesting. Could you explain how officers go about identifying those they have reason to suspect of potential future wrongdoing in a crowd of, say, 200 people; and how when charging forward in numbers flailing randomly an officer is able to ensure he strikes only those against whom sufficient evidence has been gathered? Could you also give me an idea of what sort of crimes there would need to be suspicion of for their prevention to warrant splitting someone's head open with a metal pole?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Fair point.  I should have said ... any SANE Chief Constable ...
> 
> (And the amount of criticism he got, and the extent to which his proclamations were ignored, within his own force is testament to the fact that police officers do _not_ blindly hate the people the Chief tells them to hate!)


 
Like I said, I'm not fussed about how police officers think of me, I'm more concerned with how they behave towards me. And their behaviour _is_ governed by those higher up the food chain. Returning to the point of the thread, I doubt Mr Kennedy infiltrated that dangerous and unhinged band of lentil-munchers on his own initiative now did he? I daresay someone told him to. Whether he had anything personal against his victims is irrelevant, he still sttched them up _because he was told to_.


----------



## revlon (Oct 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I think James Anderton may have had one or two notions in that direction...


 
praise the lord!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Who is Irish then?
> 
> AKA?
> 
> ...



His surname is Kennedy!


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But they don't.  They follow orders where those orders are lawful.  But that is nowhere near the same as hating any particular group because the Chief Constable hates them.
> 
> (And please do provide evidence of any Chief Constable putting out some sort of memo to the effect "I hate all these lefty scum.  You must hate them too" ... or do they manage the thoughts and beliefs of their officers by some sort of mind control ...)


 
Sounds like the Inspector in The Borribles books...


----------



## revlon (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But they are _not_ allowed to "beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it".  They mainly have ONLY the same rights to use force as anyone else: in self-defence or defence of another; to prevent crime or to make a lawful arrest.  The owners of private property have an additional right that the police _don't_ have (to eject a trespasser).  (There are a few situations, associated with the carrying out of authorised actions that would only apply to the police, such as the taking of fingerprints after arrest and various other powers under PACE, where the police have powers not available to the general public, but they are not often the ones being used in the _vast_ majority of cases).  In every case the force used, as for the public, must be "reasonable and necessary".
> 
> If they use any force when they have no legal power to they are investigated, charged and prosecuted.  If they use excessive force when they have a legal power to use some, likewise.
> 
> ...


 
i think it's along time since you've been on active public order duty detective.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But they are _not_ allowed to "beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it".  They mainly have ONLY the same rights to use force as anyone else: in self-defence or defence of another; to prevent crime or to make a lawful arrest.  The owners of private property have an additional right that the police _don't_ have (to eject a trespasser).  (There are a few situations, associated with the carrying out of authorised actions that would only apply to the police, such as the taking of fingerprints after arrest and various other powers under PACE, where the police have powers not available to the general public, but they are not often the ones being used in the _vast_ majority of cases).  In every case the force used, as for the public, must be "reasonable and necessary".
> 
> *If they use any force when they have no legal power to they are investigated, charged and prosecuted.  If they use excessive force when they have a legal power to use some, likewise.*
> The only reason that you perceive that they are somehow not subject to the law is that the vast majority of cases (but by no means all) in which force is used (especially in the preventing of crime or making of arrests) it is the police who are involved.  And the main reason that there are few convictions is that they almost always have a lawful right to use _some_ force and the amount used is rarely so excessive as to clearly merit conviction in an area where the law requires judgement to be made on the basis of what the person using the force honestly believed at the time (even if it turns out to be wrong) and acknowledges that it is not possible to weigh to a nicety the amount of force being used.  Thus, as the vast majority of officers are usually trying their best to do their job properly and lawfully in difficult and often confused circumstances there are not going to be many convictions.
> ...


really?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> His surname is Kennedy!



who? the tout? AKA or db?

... and besides Wayne Rooney plays for England and _his_ name is also Irish (as is his granny)


----------



## rioted (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er ... so have I.  On _many_ more occasions than you.


How many on the wrong side?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 28, 2010)

> (in moon23's example, by the way, there was certainly power to use some force (she was obstructing them in making an arrest) but whether or not being pepper-sprayed / batoned was "reasonable and necessary" is less clear.)



I think they asked me to let go before hitting me to give them credit. I think pepper spraying anti war protestors for sitting in the road is overkill  - http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news380.htm


----------



## LiamO (Oct 28, 2010)

Back to Chief Constables...

On the Manchester Martyr's march we always encountered much hostility, hypocrisy and violence from Mr Anderton's chaps. 

and I'm not just talking about when in pressure situations either...


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> who? the tout? AKA or db?
> 
> ... and besides Wayne Rooney plays for England and _his_ name is also Irish (as is his granny)


 
He could play for Ireland, in theory.


----------



## rioted (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> He could play for Ireland, in theory.


 He could _have_ play_ed_ for Ireland, in theory


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> my problem here is, I Believe firmly that in a post-revolutionary situation, we will STILL need a police force. So - who will our 'bastards' be?


 
Problem with the police is the problem with any bureaucracy - who's interests do they serve? Who are they accountable to? Same with armed forces.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Problem with the police is the problem with any bureaucracy - *who's interests do they serve? Who are they accountable to*? Same with armed forces.


 
The people?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> The people?


 
Yes, but they don't. Here lies the problem.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 28, 2010)

rioted said:


> He could _have_ play_ed_ for Ireland, in theory



Indeed. His brother Paul(? plays for Shrewesbury?) did choose to declare for Ireland. Unfortunately Wayne seems to have all the talent.

But back to the fray... I have a sneaking suspicion db is actually Irish.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, but they don't. Here lies the problem.


 
What if the police were disbanded and people policed themselves, maybe each postcode could have their own militia...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

John Rooney was on trial at Wrexham recently, don't think we'll offer him anything though. Wayne's younger bro, played for Ireland at u21 level I think. Was at Stockport and had a few unsuccessful trials with MLS clubs too, iirc.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> What if the police were disbanded and people policed themselves, maybe each postcode could have their own militia...


 
Not sure about post code militias, but yeah, point I was making was that a police force could be made democratic and accountable in the 'post revolutionary' period Streathamite referred to.


----------



## strung out (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> John Rooney was on trial at Wrexham recently, don't think we'll offer him anything though. Wayne's younger bro, played for Ireland at u21 level I think. Was at Stockport and had a few unsuccessful trials with MLS clubs too, iirc.


 
played 40 odd games for macclesfield. not sure what he's up to as he got released and didn't find a club.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not sure about post code militias, but yeah, point I was making was that a police force could be made democratic and accountable in the 'post revolutionary' period Streathamite referred to.


 
They'd have to be democratic and accountable, otherwise what point the revolution? And to ensure the post revolution society stayed on course, wouldn't some of the new rev-cops have to infiltrate dissenters?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

strung out said:


> played 40 odd games for macclesfield. not sure what he's up to as he got released and didn't find a club.


 
Was only last week he was with us, so not much it would appear


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> They'd have to be democratic and accountable, otherwise what point the revolution? And to ensure the post revolution society stayed on course, wouldn't some of the new rev-cops have to infiltrate dissenters?


 
It would need to be in the interests of (and answerable to) the people, not property or capital or the ruling bureaucracy/class, yes. And, yes, some sort of force might need to infiltrate any genuine counter-revolutionary forces. Having said that, this particular case involved people who were clearly no threat to the state nor to people, but rather were (at worst) a threat to property, or more likely imo to vested political interests. If in a post-revolutionary society, some people wished to sell copies of Capitalist Boss on street corners, or hold a demo to complain about all this ruddy fairness, or to form a human chain around some wasteland to prevent tree-planting and demand more exploitation of natural resources, then I'd see no reason why they should be infiltrated, or indeed prevented or impeded.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> If in a post-revolutionary society, some people wished to sell copies of Capitalist Boss on street corners, or hold a demo to complain about all this ruddy fairness, or to form a human chain around some wasteland to prevent tree-planting and demand more exploitation of natural resources, then I'd see no reason why they should be infiltrated, or indeed prevented or impeded.



that's a great image


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

It'll happen, one day.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

We live in hope !!


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Could you explain how officers go about identifying those they have reason to suspect of potential future wrongdoing in a crowd of, say, 200 people; and how when charging forward in numbers flailing randomly an officer is able to ensure he strikes only those against whom sufficient evidence has been gathered? Could you also give me an idea of what sort of crimes there would need to be suspicion of for their prevention to warrant splitting someone's head open with a metal pole?


Yes.  I could.  In fact I have before.  There is no point in me doing so again because you will still not acknowledge it as a justification.  If anyone else, who I have not discussed it with previously wishes to ask then I will explain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  I could.  In fact I have before.  There is no point in me doing so again because you will still not acknowledge it as a justification.  If anyone else, who I have not discussed it with previously wishes to ask then I will explain.


 
you've not discussed this with me


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whether he had anything personal against his victims is irrelevant, he still sttched them up _because he was told to_.


He went and gathered information as directed.  That is a perfectly lawful order and has _nothing_ to do with whether he had anything personal against the or not.  As I have regularly done before, I would suggest that it would be totally _wrong_ for an individual officer to refuse to carry out a particular policing task because he happens to like the people he is told to carry it out on.  The officer would be perfectly entitled to ask to see the grounds for suspecting criminal activity.  They would be entitled to confirm that the necessary authorisations had been given.  They would _not_ be entitled to pick and choose what they did.

And "stitched up" usually means framed using false evidence.  Please provide your evidence for the allegation that this officer provided false evidence resulting in unsafe convictions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

He stitched them up by lying to them. It's fine for a copper to impersonate another person, then, when talking to people he has no reason at all to suspect of any _serious_ offence? He lied to them, he spied on them, he no doubt broke some minor laws with them. He ingratiated himself into their circle and then betrayed their trust. He trampled on everything that is good about people. 

You're either naive or dissembling. This stuff is justified as action against terrorism, as you should well know. But it is not. It is action against those who do not accept the political status quo and choose to organise themselves against it. As such, it is profoundly anti-democratic. The enemy within is not those he was spying on. It is him and those who sent him.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> really?


Yes.  Really.  As you know _perfectly well_ the use of force in this particular case has been judged to be unlawful.  The reason that there has not been a conviction is because of evidential difficulties in relation to manslaughter and as a result of procedural fuck-up in relation to common assault, NOT because of the police being above the law.  If that had been the case there wouldn't have been an investigation and there wouldn't have been a report characterising the use of force as unlawful.

Your habit (and the habit of many others) in pulling out Ian Tomlinson / Jean Charles de Menezes / Harry Stanley as if they somehow prove anything is pathetic (and extremely annoying).  Each case had it's own particular circumstances and they "prove" absolutely nothing in terms of general principles.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

rioted said:


> How many on the wrong side?


Oh right.  Sorry.  I didn't realise that you could only see things from one direction.  

(It would, however, explain why you claim that the police _never_ do _anything_ lawfully _ever_...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think they asked me to let go before hitting me to give them credit. I think pepper spraying anti war protestors for sitting in the road is overkill  - http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news380.htm


I would tend to agree in general.  (And there in general the use of pepper spray / CS spray in a public order situation is NOT recommended for purely practical reasons!!)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  Really.  As you know _perfectly well_ the use of force in this particular case has been judged to be unlawful.  The reason that there has not been a conviction is because of evidential difficulties in relation to manslaughter and as a result of procedural fuck-up in relation to common assault, NOT because of the police being above the law.  If that had been the case there wouldn't have been an investigation and there wouldn't have been a report characterising the use of force as unlawful.
> 
> Your habit (and the habit of many others) in pulling out Ian Tomlinson / Jean Charles de Menezes / Harry Stanley as if they somehow prove anything is pathetic (and extremely annoying).  Each case had it's own particular circumstances and they "prove" absolutely nothing in terms of general principles.


they prove that the police do not tell the truth: as in addition does the case of diarmuid o'neill.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Your habit (and the habit of many others) in pulling out Ian Tomlinson / Jean Charles de Menezes / Harry Stanley as if they somehow prove anything is pathetic (and extremely annoying).  Each case had it's own particular circumstances and they "prove" absolutely nothing in terms of general principles.


 
They prove one thing, again and again. Just as the people of Northern Ireland knew that no soldier who killed innocent people while on duty would ever be held to account, we know that no police officer who kills innocent people while on duty will ever be held to account.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh right.  Sorry.  I didn't realise that you could only see things from one direction.
> 
> (It would, however, explain why you claim that the police _never_ do _anything_ lawfully _ever_...


 
they must do. after all, if you put a load of monkeys at typewriters sooner or later you'll get a coherent sentence. the same thing with the police and the law.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

How many police officers have been convicted of causing deaths while in police custody?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, but they don't. Here lies the problem.


That is a problem for politicians, not the police, to resolve.  They could not make the changes even if they wanted to (which, in many ways, they do - entirely handing over complaints investigation, etc. to the IPCC for instance would be something that got a lot of support within the police).


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They prove one thing, again and again. Just as the people of Northern Ireland knew that no soldier who killed innocent people while on duty would ever be held to account, we know that no police officer who kills innocent people while on duty will ever be held to account.


 
er... lee clegg and ian thain were both convicted of murder.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> And to ensure the post revolution society stayed on course, wouldn't some of the new rev-cops have to infiltrate dissenters?


Indeed.  I think the experience of the post-revolution societies we have seen suggests that the use of "secret police" is hardly something that is confined to the capitalists and monarchists!


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> If in a post-revolutionary society, some people wished to sell copies of Capitalist Boss on street corners, or hold a demo to complain about all this ruddy fairness, or to form a human chain around some wasteland to prevent tree-planting and demand more exploitation of natural resources, then I'd see no reason why they should be infiltrated, or indeed prevented or impeded.


And if they started smashing up all your nice cuddly revolutionary organisations and beating up all you nice cuddly revolutionaries ...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

Huh? that isn't what the people infiltrated in this case did. I know, because I know one of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And if they started smashing up all your nice cuddly revolutionary organisations and beating up all you nice cuddly revolutionaries ...


 
then i'm sure they'd be sent to join you in whatever pit of tartarus you'd be in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And if they started smashing up all your nice cuddly revolutionary organisations and beating up all you nice cuddly revolutionaries ...


 
How many of the people this tout spied on have done either of those things?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He stitched them up by lying to them.


That's not "stitching them up" in the way the phrase is generally used. 

I agree that the infiltration should not be simply on the basis of lawful, political disagreement with the status quo.  If it turned out to be on that basis it would be unlawful and it should be investigated and prosecuted.  Preventing people and businesses from going about their lawful business by threats, violence, intimidation and disorder is not "democratic" is it?  Democratic is persuading the majority of the electorate to change the law. 

But I am 100% sure that it was not made on that basis but on the basis of suspected serious criminal offences (damage, assault, disorder).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He went and gathered information as directed.  That is a perfectly lawful order and has _nothing_ to do with whether he had anything personal against the or not.  As I have regularly done before, I would suggest that it would be totally _wrong_ for an individual officer to refuse to carry out a particular policing task because he happens to like the people he is told to carry it out on.  The officer would be perfectly entitled to ask to see the grounds for suspecting criminal activity.  They would be entitled to confirm that the necessary authorisations had been given.  They would _not_ be entitled to pick and choose what they did.
> 
> And "stitched up" usually means framed using false evidence.  Please provide your evidence for the allegation that this officer provided false evidence resulting in unsafe convictions.


 
We had a case last year of an article in the Observer with a snout 'revealing all' about his time undercover in Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE) and Militant. The article was a bit silly really, trying to make out it was like going underground with the RAF, when everybody knows Militant are not that sort of group politically, and have never pissed about with individual direct action or squadism, but that is by the by. Everybody I know who knew this snout back in the early 90's says that he was always encouraging, essentially, squadism; to go out bashing racists & homophobes instead of building mass campaigns against them, this sort of thing. Agitating.

So, what would be your legal view of that? Is it unacceptable for police offices to attempt to create trouble, rather than just attempting to prevent it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

Damage and 'disorder' are serious criminal offences? 

Not in may book. Rape, murder, gbh, etc, those are serious criminal offences. 

Define 'disorder' for me, anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  I could.  In fact I have before.  There is no point in me doing so again because you will still not acknowledge it as a justification.


 
I'm really not that upset by your refusal to answer a rhetorical question tbh. 

And no, funnily enough I don't think there can possibly be any justification for charging into a crowd of unarmed people and bashing their heads in indiscriminately. That paticular method of 'crime prevention' makes about as much sense to me as swatting a fly with a hand grenade.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...we know that no police officer who kills innocent people while on duty will ever be held to account.


No.  You don't "know" that at all.  Not least because lots of police officers who have killed innocent people whilst on duty have been held to account (i.e. investigated and prosecuted).  And lots have been convicted (which is what I assume you actually mean by "held to account", seeing as you don't actually mean expected to account for their actions, you mean convicted and punished (which is not the same thing at all).

You are just spouting a lazy untruth that you have chosen to believe.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

If this fellow had infiltrated a far right group, would he be as villified as he is now, do you reckons?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And if they started smashing up all your nice cuddly revolutionary organisations and beating up all you nice cuddly revolutionaries ...


 
But that wasn't who was infiltrated here, was it? None of these people represented such a threat, did they?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Who is Irish then?
> 
> AKA?
> 
> ...


AKA


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> How many police officers have been convicted of causing deaths while in police custody?


It's been gone over repeatedly on other threads.  I can't be arsed doing it all again.  Go look it up.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> who? the tout? AKA or db?
> 
> ... and besides Wayne Rooney plays for England and _his_ name is also Irish (as is his granny)


Im presuming Streathamite may be refering to be me as being Irish.. If you have read the thread I make mention of the touts face being familiar
btw: the clue might be in my location given here? and I have met Streathamite previously...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's been gone over repeatedly on other threads.  I can't be arsed doing it all again.  Go look it up.


 
You said 'lots', so you must have a rough idea. What is it?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Huh? that isn't what the people infiltrated in this case did. I know, because I know one of them.


YOU know that ... but the police don't until they, er, gather some information ...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So, what would be your legal view of that? Is it unacceptable for police offices to attempt to create trouble, rather than just attempting to prevent it?


Yes.  Totally.  And it is unlawful.  (There is obviously a very low level of things which may be necessary to establish and maintain cover but actually agitating for offences to be committed or committing significant offences cannot be, and is not, condoned (by ordinary informants, let alone undercover officers)).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> If this fellow had infiltrated a far right group, would he be as villified as he is now, do you reckons?


 
I have no more desire to see far right groups stifled and harassed by the state, if they are no trying to blow people up, than I do far left ones.

Always looking for hypocrisy, and always failing.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Problem with the police is the problem with any bureaucracy - who's interests do they serve? Who are they accountable to? Same with armed forces.


I couldn't agree more; and until a post-revolutionary society solves _quis custodiet ipsos custodes_, then the revolution can't be said to have succeeded


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Damage and 'disorder' are serious criminal offences?


Yes.  At the serious end of the scale.  Obviously (well, obviously to anyone with the slightest ability to take an objective view ...)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He went and gathered information as directed.  That is a perfectly lawful order and has _nothing_ to do with whether he had anything personal against the or not.  As I have regularly done before, I would suggest that it would be totally _wrong_ for an individual officer to refuse to carry out a particular policing task because he happens to like the people he is told to carry it out on.  The officer would be perfectly entitled to ask to see the grounds for suspecting criminal activity.  They would be entitled to confirm that the necessary authorisations had been given.  They would _not_ be entitled to pick and choose what they did.



Well I personally wouldn't spend years spying on people I liked, but then I have a thing called a conscience. And all humans are entitled to pick and choose what they do as it happens. I am reminded of something my dear old nan used to say; "take your job and shove it up up your arse you wretched fascist cunt"



> And "stitched up" usually means framed using false evidence.  Please provide your evidence for the allegation that this officer provided false evidence resulting in unsafe convictions.


 
Where I come from it is more of a catch-all term encompassing cheating, betrayal and general wrongdoing towards one's fellow man.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> YOU know that ... but the police don't until they, er, gather some information ...


 
So what you're saying is that in over nine years of spying, he was unable to work out whether or not the group he was spying on was a terrorist threat?

Fuck me, he must have been fucking shit at his job.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I have no more desire to see far right groups stifled and harassed by the state, if they are no trying to blow people up, than I do far left ones.
> 
> Always looking for hypocrisy, and always failing.


 
If this fellow had infiltrated a group of nonces, then?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm really not that upset by your refusal to answer a rhetorical question tbh.


It's not a "refusal".  It's pointing out that we have already done this.  And that you don't acknowledge the answer I give and you won't this time either ... so it's a total waste of time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> If this fellow had infiltrated a group of nonces, then?


 
is noncing a democratic right now?

score.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> If this fellow had infiltrated a group of nonces, then?


 
That could be justified imo. The nonces would, by definition, be nasty people deserving of betrayal.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Huh? that isn't what the people infiltrated in this case did. I know, because I know one of them.


 
I know quite a few of them. Not one of them would hurt a fly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

There's no hypocrisy here, jerB.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> If this fellow had infiltrated a group of nonces, then?


 
Nonces are clearly a threat to people (ie children), you fool.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That could be justified imo. The nonces would, by definition, be nasty people deserving of betrayal.


 
Exactly. Nasty people. Perhaps it was decided somewhere along the line that the people he infiltrated were nasty types?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> ... if they are no trying to blow people up ...


There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> Exactly. Nasty people. Perhaps it was decided somewhere along the line that the people he infiltrated were nasty types?


 
You're clutching at straws here.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...


 
I know, I used poetic license.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're clutching at straws here.


 
Straw men


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's not a "refusal".  It's pointing out that we have already done this.  And that you don't acknowledge the answer I give and you won't this time either ... so it's a total waste of time.


 
I can't remember exactly but I assume you would argue that it is justifable to open skulls in defence of private property. The day I acknowledge that argument as valid will be the day hell freezes over.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

jer said:


> Exactly. Nasty people. Perhaps it was decided somewhere along the line that the people he infiltrated were nasty types?


The point is that in this particular instance the posters sympathise with the group infiltrated.  Whereas other people may not.  Whilst the police would apply a consistent, objective approach to the infiltration of any group - namely are there significant grounds for believing that they may be involved with significant criminal offending - everyone else simply applies a subjective approach, namely either (a) "I like them therefore _anything_ the police do is wrong" or (b) "I don't like them so the police can never do enough.  Fuck them".


----------



## rekil (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...


 
Is hitting someone with a baton and shoving them to the pavement one of them?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> We had a case last year of an article in the Observer with a snout 'revealing all' about his time undercover in Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE) and Militant. The article was a bit silly really, trying to make out it was like going underground with the RAF, when everybody knows Militant are not that sort of group politically, and have never pissed about with individual direct action or squadism, but that is by the by. Everybody I know who knew this snout back in the early 90's says that he was always encouraging, essentially, squadism; to go out bashing racists & homophobes instead of building mass campaigns against them, this sort of thing. Agitating.
> 
> So, what would be your legal view of that? Is it unacceptable for police offices to attempt to create trouble, rather than just attempting to prevent it?


 
  

what a productive use of time and energy


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can't remember exactly but I assume you would argue that it is justifable to open skulls in defence of private property. The day I acknowledge that argument as valid will be the day hell freezes over.


Seeing as we live in a democracy which has decided that private property is lawful, yes.  My _individual_ view is irrelevant if I choose to live in a society which sets it's rules by majority view.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...


 
Have you ever watched someone you love struggling to recover from a serious head injury? I suspect if you had then you'd think a little longer about making apologies for those who smash people around the head as punishment for some misdemeanor they or someone nearby might possibly cause at a later date.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> what a productive use of time and energy


 
Militant should have gone all RAF though- add a bit of Paul Smith and polo-neck t's to the baader-mienhoff euro chic of berets and that


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

And the members of militant who were infiltrated - as well as these anarchists - they were going to contribute to "massive financial ruin" wer they? If they are looking for groups that cause massive financial ruin, why dont they infiltrate a Bank?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  Really.  As you know _perfectly well_ the use of force in this particular case has been judged to be unlawful.  The reason that there has not been a conviction is because of evidential difficulties in relation to manslaughter and as a result of procedural fuck-up in relation to common assault, NOT because of the police being above the law.  If that had been the case there wouldn't have been an investigation and there wouldn't have been a report characterising the use of force as unlawful.
> 
> Your habit (and the habit of many others) in pulling out Ian Tomlinson / Jean Charles de Menezes / Harry Stanley as if they somehow prove anything is pathetic (and extremely annoying).  Each case had it's own particular circumstances and they "prove" absolutely nothing in terms of general principles.


I beg to differ. They appear to provide strong, if not incontrovertible, evidence that the police regularly kill innocent people and nothing happens as a result. You can point at false walls between the various actors involved, the lack of culpability with regards to the police being properly held to account and so on but I would suggest to you that the amount of circumstantial evidence in the lack of action in the cases you highlight as being pretty strong indeed.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Militant should have gone all RAF though- add a bit of Paul Smith and polo-neck t's to the baader-mienhoff euro chic of berets and that


 
We still can, DC, we still can


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 28, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> er... lee clegg and ian thain were both convicted of murder.


Perversely welcomed back into the army after both serving less than 4 years... Clegg was eventually acquited of the murder of Karen O'Reilly

(apols for disrail)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Seeing as we live in a democracy which has decided that private property is lawful, yes.  My _individual_ view is irrelevant if I choose to live in a society which sets it's rules by majority view.


 
If my knowledge of political history serves we had private property long before we had democracy. The latter has never been allowed to challenge the supremacy of the former. But I'm not interested in the law at this point, I'm concerned with what is morally justified. Violence against people is *always* worse than crimes against property, wealth, social status or no claims bonus.

Your precious democracy has also, lest we forget, decided to frown upon the following:
-corporal punishment
-collective punishment
-punishment without due legal process

Ah, I hear you cry, but it's not punishment it's a _preventative measure_. Well if you take that strand of logic to its conclusion then we'd better start smothering newborn babies at birth lest they should steal a kitkat from the corner shop later in life.


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Oct 28, 2010)

just a quicky - I was on the wrong side of the law for a long time and even tho nowadays I am a productive member of society and respect the fact that law enforcement is needed (ya dont say..) 
But i witnessed on many occasion how 'gun hoe' the police are - after all, they are people with emotions and I have seen them full of adrenalin acting like they are in a rugby game or something dragging a man through a smashed car window by his ears/hair whilst they'd cuffed him already and letting him land on the road like a dead weight then kick him whist down, whilst his 5 year old is in the back seat screaming - he got charged with a motoring offence
Point being that they are people at the end of the day and not some supreme beings...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> ... but I would suggest to you that the amount of circumstantial evidence in the lack of action in the cases you highlight as being pretty strong indeed.


And I would say that that is bollocks.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

*Miss Daisy* said:


> But i witnessed on many occasion how 'gun hoe' the police are - after all, they are people with emotions and I have seen them full of adrenalin acting like they are in a rugby game or something dragging a man through a smashed car window by his ears/hair whilst they'd cuffed him already and letting him land on the road like a dead weight then kick him whist down, whilst his 5 year old is in the back seat screaming - he got charged with a motoring offence


No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen.  I have criticised them on many occasions.  But they are NOT the norm.  (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen.  I have criticised them on many occasions.  But they are NOT the norm.  (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)


 
Well, it happens to some a lot more than others, doesn't it? Posh accent never hurts, things like that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2010)

copliker said:


> Is hitting someone with a baton and shoving them to the pavement one of them?


 
I have been shoved around by the police on several marches and rallies - and they were complete tossers for it but I wouldn't say they are all violent types. I would certainly hope so...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> ... things like that.


More usually things like failing to stop, trying to run away, being aggressive, violent and abusive ...

(Some of which I suspect *Miss Daisy* either omitted from her story or which had happened before she started to observe the incident ...)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen.  I have criticised them on many occasions.  But they are NOT the norm.  (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)


 
You are quite right for once. Coppers getting the red mist is not the norm. I've seen people beaten, left on the tarmac without medical attention and then denied access to hospital treatment by entirely calm and composed police officers. Everyone can lose their rag sometimes, but it takes a special kind of bastard to calmly wait for half an hour to see if he has permission from higher up to let a man with a broken leg (which his fellow officers had broken) get into the waiting ambulance less than 50 yards away.


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Oct 28, 2010)

I didn't omit I just didn't divulge - he was a known drug user/criminal, had lots of history with the police but had actually pulled over when the police ordered him too (no resistance) - their heavy handedness (in my opinion) was because they thought he had drugs on him and didnt want him to get rid of them - he didnt have drugs on him
they handcuffed him whilst he was in the car after smashing the window (???) no need to drag him out tho...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> More usually things like failing to stop, trying to run away, being aggressive, violent and abusive ...


 
You know, I discovered recently that David Cameron got caught with some weed when he was 16/17. He was taken by the police back to Eton, and given a ruddy good telling off, but no criminal record. Discretion, on the copper's part, clearly.

I also got caught with weed when I was around the same age. It resulted in a night in the cells, a fine, compulsory attendance at a drugs awareness thing every Sunday for 4 weeks or something, and a criminal record for me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You know, I discovered recently that David Cameron got caught with some weed when he was 16/17. He was taken by the police back to Eton, and given a ruddy good telling off, but no criminal record. Discretion, on the copper's part, clearly.
> 
> I also got caught with weed when I was around the same age. It resulted in a night in the cells, a fine, compulsory attendance at a drugs awareness thing every Sunday for 4 weeks or something, and a criminal record for me.


 
Fair's fair though mate, you did have an entire nine bar down your trousers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2010)

Youthful high jinks


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Fair's fair though mate, you did have an entire nine bar down your trousers.


 
It was all personal, honest guv


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> You are quite right for once. Coppers getting the red mist is not the norm. I've seen people beaten, left on the tarmac without medical attention and then denied access to hospital treatment by entirely calm and composed police officers. Everyone can lose their rag sometimes, but it takes a special kind of bastard to calmly wait for half an hour to see if he has permission from higher up to let a man with a broken leg (which his fellow officers had broken) get into the waiting ambulance less than 50 yards away.


 
The same calmness as that of the coppers who calmly allowed 95 football supporters be crushed to death without lifting a finger to help.

The culture of obedience that d-b is defending is rotten to its core. Every copper should hold him or herself personally responsible for their actions. Don't fucking hide behind the uniform. That way lies dehumanisation after which all kinds of atrocities are possible – it is 'them' and 'us' and the 'them' aren't quite fully human like us, hence the division.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

*Miss Daisy* said:


> I didn't omit I just didn't divulge


 



> - their heavy handedness (in my opinion) was because they thought he had drugs on him and didnt want him to get rid of them -


That would be one possible explanation, for sure.  Sounds a bit over the top though.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> And the members of militant who were infiltrated - as well as these anarchists - they were going to contribute to "massive financial ruin" wer they? If they are looking for groups that cause massive financial ruin, why dont they infiltrate a Bank?


 
i must have been contributing to the downfall of society by attending some anti poll tax meetings and writing into the local paper.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 28, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The culture of obedience that d-b is defending is rotten to its core.


I'm not defending any "culture of obedience".  I'm simply pointing out that a system in which every individual officer made their own minds up what laws they would enforce, when and how, based on their own personal beliefs and preferences, would be entirely unworkable and entirely unjustifiable.



> Every copper should hold him or herself personally responsible for their actions.


Within the parameters of the law, they _are_.  Some pretend they're not, and the paranoid levels of "accountability" applied over the last twenty years which have resulted in a witch hunt for who's to blame whenever anything goes wrong has encouraged that.  But each officer has discretion and is answerable to the law for what they do.  Where there is a breach of the law they have a _duty_ to deal with it.  _How_ they deal with it is where their discretion comes in.  We need _more_ application of discretion, not less.  But that is NOT the same as choosing whether or not to follow any particular lawful order in terms of deployment.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 28, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i must have been contributing to the downfall of society by attending some anti poll tax meetings and writing into the local paper.


 
Have you still got the letter?

"Dear editor

Oi oi oi!..."


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 28, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Youthful *high* jinks


----------



## revlon (Oct 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not defending any "culture of obedience".  I'm simply pointing out that a system in which every individual officer made their own minds up what laws they would enforce, when and how, based on their own personal beliefs and preferences, would be entirely unworkable and entirely unjustifiable.
> 
> 
> Within the parameters of the law, they _are_.  Some pretend they're not, and the paranoid levels of "accountability" applied over the last twenty years which have resulted in a witch hunt for who's to blame whenever anything goes wrong has encouraged that.  But each officer has discretion and is answerable to the law for what they do.  Where there is a breach of the law they have a _duty_ to deal with it.  _How_ they deal with it is where their discretion comes in.  We need _more_ application of discretion, not less.  But that is NOT the same as choosing whether or not to follow any particular lawful order in terms of deployment.


 
and then uniform go and cock everything up 

CCTV shows police 'punching' Liverpool park stab victim


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Have you still got the letter?
> 
> "Dear editor
> 
> Oi oi oi!..."


 


i don't think they would've printed letters about Oi - just general stuff, anti poll tax, rich fuckers giving themselves huge pay rises (that one actually cost me my job!)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not defending any "culture of obedience".  I'm simply pointing out that a system in which every individual officer made their own minds up what laws they would enforce, when and how, based on their own personal beliefs and preferences, would be entirely unworkable and entirely unjustifiable.
> 
> 
> Within the parameters of the law, they _are_.  Some pretend they're not, and the paranoid levels of "accountability" applied over the last twenty years which have resulted in a witch hunt for who's to blame whenever anything goes wrong has encouraged that.  But each officer has discretion and is answerable to the law for what they do.  Where there is a breach of the law they have a _duty_ to deal with it.  _How_ they deal with it is where their discretion comes in.  We need _more_ application of discretion, not less.  But that is NOT the same as choosing whether or not to follow any particular lawful order in terms of deployment.


 
you must have missed the bit where the cunts collective (aka the serried ranks of the police in this country) decided to stop enforcing the laws against cycling on the pavement. so much for their fucking _duty_ to enforce the law.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

More lies ...  

http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroug...oing/news/cracking_down_on_dangerous_cyclists


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

im still intreested in what crimes the members of militant and the anarchists were deemed to be plannin that necessetiated such a large amount of police time and resources being devoted to infiltrating these groups. it does seem a shocking waste of money tbh and im interested in the rationale that goes into this. surely the fact that neither group were a threat could have been ascertained by just simple observation of their activites rather than having to have these operations.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> surely the fact that neither group were a threat could have been ascertained by just simple observation of their activites rather than having to have these operations.


You think that long term surveillance using conventional technques (i.e. observation points and following them about using officers on foot and in vehicles) (a) produces the same level of detailed intelligence as a covert human intelligence source (informant or undercover officer) and (b) is cheaper than using a covert human intelligence source?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You think that long term surveillance using conventional technques (i.e. observation points and following them about using officers on foot and in vehicles) (a) produces the same level of detailed intelligence as a covert human intelligence source (informant or undercover officer) and (b) is cheaper than using a covert human intelligence source?


 can you read the post and respond to it rather than replying to an entirely different post extant only in your imagination?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> More lies ...
> 
> http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroug...oing/news/cracking_down_on_dangerous_cyclists


so, several months ago police from kensington and chelsea, one of the smallest boroughs in london, cracked down on cyclists. big fucking deal. what about the cyclists in the rest of london, let alone the rest of the country? if this is the best you can do you might as well give up now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

Im a SP member (the org that used to be militant) and it should be quite obvious just by LOOKING at our activities and behaviour that we're not about to blow up a fucking bank or something. The same with anarchists, lets face it the most illegal stuff most of them get up to is smoking weed and perhaps the odd bit of vandalism (sorry  ) Can you reply to my post please as to why it was necessary to expend money and resources on this meaningless nonsense as opposed to serious offences?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2010)

Innit, would be cheaper if they just bought the paper.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Can you reply to my post please as to why it was necessary to expend money and resources on this meaningless nonsense as opposed to serious offences?


 i thought i just said that


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

you did.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so, several months ago police from kensington and chelsea, one of the smallest boroughs in london, cracked down on cyclists. big fucking deal. what about the cyclists in the rest of london, let alone the rest of the country? if this is the best you can do you might as well give up now.


 
i see cyclists on the pvement every day here.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

Hang on, the people the OP infiltrated aren't necessarily anarchists. They were targeted for their eco-type stuff, a hangover from the 90s and later threat-producing budget-defending/expanding policies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i see cyclists on the pvement every day here.


 
yeh. and when you see cops cycling a lot of the time they're on pavements too. and they don't bother with the 'single file' laid down by the highway code (not that they do when they're on horses either).


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

sorry, my mistake.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Can you reply to my post please as to why it was necessary to expend money and resources on this meaningless nonsense as opposed to serious offences?


I did respond to your point.  "Looking at ... activities and behaviour" means surveillance.  And, as I posted, that neither produces the same level of detailed intelligence product as infiltration and is much, much more expensive.

Asa for what crimes were suspected, I don't know as I don't have access to the files behind the operation.  And neither do you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2010)

Do these groups have any kind of vetting procedures regarding new members?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Do these groups have any kind of vetting procedures regarding new members?


 
sadly few groups have any idea of even basic security


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Do these groups have any kind of vetting procedures regarding new members?



I think anyone can sign up these days

http://www.policecouldyou.co.uk/


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, the people the OP infiltrated aren't necessarily anarchists. They were targeted for their eco-type stuff, a hangover from the 90s and later threat-producing budget-defending/expanding policies.


yep.

looking at the timing of this, if the infiltration started around 2000, this was around the time that the terrorism act was coming into force, and there was talk of earth first, and RTS possibly being proscribed as terrorist groups due to the wide ranging terrorism definition in that act.

This was also straight after J18 in 1999 when RTS had properly run rings round the police, and virtually closed the city of london down for a day by mobilising tens of thousands to a none a-b style police condoned protest march.

I doubt it's a coincidence that from 2000 onwards after this guy began infiltrating this network that the police have mostly had the upper hand with the mayday protests and other stuff.

If this guy was as involved in dissent as I'm thinking he probably was (wish my memory would work properly), it probably explains many of the problems dissent had in the run up to the protests with the police finding out which land owners had offered us land, and putting pressure on them to change their minds. 

The eventual tactic of small affinity groups heading for the hills, and lots of other groups largely doing their own thing eventually meant that we had the upper hand for most of the first morning as we ran the police ragged all over scotland, but it could explain how our medical team were targeted in edinburgh inside a van, and a few other things.

hmm...


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I did respond to your point.  "Looking at ... activities and behaviour" means surveillance.  And, as I posted, that neither produces the same level of detailed intelligence product as infiltration and is much, much more expensive.
> 
> Asa for what crimes were suspected, I don't know as I don't have access to the files behind the operation.  And neither do you.


shit.

I remember trying to work out why we didn't seem to be under any sort of surveillance at the last big pre g8 dissent planning meeting.... they obviously didn't need to as they'd already got us infiltrated.

(5 years later the penny drops)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I did respond to your point.  "Looking at ... activities and behaviour" means surveillance.  And, as I posted, that neither produces the same level of detailed intelligence product as infiltration and is much, much more expensive.
> 
> Asa for what crimes were suspected, I don't know as I don't have access to the files behind the operation.  And neither do you.


 
But surely it should be obvious just by looking at them? 

and im sorry, this is gonna sound stupid, but there are (to use a daily mail cliche) murderers etc on the streets, there was that guy Peter Tobin who has been convicted recently after murdering people across the country since the 70s and never been caught, and it shocks me that so much police attention is given to people who werent doing any harm to anyone but who happened to have different views. i mean what on earth did they think they were doing? how did it justify all the money spent on it?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> ... it shocks me that so much police attention is given to people who werent doing any harm to anyone but who happened to have different views. i mean what on earth did they think they were doing? how did it justify all the money spent on it?


That is your opinion that they "weren't doing any harm to anyone".  There are lots of people and businesses who would disagree with you.  

And the infiltration couldn't lawfully be carried out (and wouldn't be carried out by the police anyway) just because they "happened to have different views".  It would be because significant crimes (past or, more usually, future) were suspected, associated with the individuals or the group.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

OK so what people and businesses were harmed by these groups then? Can you say who they were harming? 

And what significant crimes were associated with the individuals and the groups? What "future crimes" (?) were those then, because on the face of it that just seems fucking mental to waste time and resources into looking into sometihng that probably won't even happen! 

It seems bonkers to spend time looking at "future crimes" by a group of trots or a group of anarchists and environmentalists when there are so many crimes with REAL EVIDENCE that ACTUALLY HAPPENED going unsolved for years and years - i am genuinely not trying to have a go here but this just seems utterly barking.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That is your opinion that they "weren't doing any harm to anyone".  There are lots of people and businesses who would disagree with you.
> 
> And the infiltration couldn't lawfully be carried out (and wouldn't be carried out by the police anyway) just because they "happened to have different views".  It would be because significant crimes (past or, more usually, future) were suspected, associated with the individuals or the group.


would you agree that the change in the definition of terrorism under the terrorism act 2000 to redefine politically motivated damage to property as being terrorism would have provided at least part of the background justification to this?

ie relatively minor property damage at protests that would previously have been treated as criminal damage at most, suddenly found itself lumped in to the same bracket as blowing up tube trains, which in turn provides the justification for the police to launch infiltration operations against them.

this change in definition IMO was aimed squarely at the NVDA movement who in 2000 were being seen in some quarters as the biggest threat to the neoliberal economic experiment (sorry, I meant to say democracy), prior to AQ launching it's successful bid for global bogeyman bragging rights.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And the infiltration couldn't lawfully be carried out (and wouldn't be carried out by the police anyway) just because they "happened to have different views".  It would be because significant crimes (past or, more usually, future) were suspected, associated with the individuals or the group.


 
This patently isn't true. What possible "significant crimes", past, present and future, were Militant suspected of?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

Hand gestures and fake scouse accents.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> OK so what people and businesses were harmed by these groups then? Can you say who they were harming?
> 
> And what significant crimes were associated with the individuals and the groups? What "future crimes" (?) were those then, because on the face of it that just seems fucking mental to waste time and resources into looking into sometihng that probably won't even happen!
> 
> It seems bonkers to spend time looking at "future crimes" by a group of trots or a group of anarchists and environmentalists when there are so many crimes with REAL EVIDENCE that ACTUALLY HAPPENED going unsolved for years and years - i am genuinely not trying to have a go here but this just seems utterly barking.


such dastardly crimes as tying a banner to a lamp post (criminal damage), removing a banner from a lamp post (criminal damage), blocking a road for a few hours... that sort of thing. Still terrorism is terrorism eh


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> OK so what people and businesses were harmed by these groups then? Can you say who they were harming?  And what significant crimes were associated with the individuals and the groups? What "future crimes" (?) were those then...


As I've said, I don't know as I was not involved with the case and the intelligence it was based on is not (and is unlikely to ever be) in the public domain.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This patently isn't true. What possible "significant crimes", past, present and future, were Militant suspected of?


 
Are you accusing db of lying?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Are you accusing db of lying?


 
No. Complete naivety, perhaps.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. Complete naivety, perhaps.


 
He would never knowingly lie of course.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

free spirit said:


> would you agree that the change in the definition of terrorism under the terrorism act 2000 to redefine politically motivated damage to property as being terrorism would have provided at least part of the background justification to this?


I'd agree that the (ridiculously) wide definition would probably include _some_ activities of eco-protest groups.  But equally I would say that the activities of eco-protest groups have been a concern for a long time, well prior to the Terrorism Act 2000.  And infiltration of them purely and simply because of the extent of their activities has been going on for a long time too.

I wouldn't agree that "relatively minor property damage at protests" has been "lumped in the same bracket as blowing up tube trains".  Just because both _could_ fall under the same definition doesn't alter the fact that they are dealt with by entirely seperate units in entirely different ways (terrorism primarily by detectives, protest primarily by uniformed, public order specialist officers). 

I was unaware of any _police_ significant pressure for the change in definition to address the NVDA movement, other than to say that the activities of the international protestors (such as the Wombles) who started to attach themselves to things like the G8 protests did tend to move the threats arising from large-scale protest up to another level of seriousness - whilst the vast majority of demonstrators weren't intent on anything much there were increasing numbers of groups and individuals who were travelling around the world to use large protests as cover for very significant criminal activity (seen in far worse situations in countries elsewhere, but always a possibility here).  I can't speak for political pressure, however.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 29, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> He would never knowingly lie of course.


 
Or at least he couldn't _recall_ lying.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This patently isn't true. What possible "significant crimes", past, present and future, were Militant suspected of?


We are talking about the eco-protest movement, not Militant.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'd agree that the (ridiculously) wide definition would probably include _some_ activities of eco-protest groups.  But equally I would say that the activities of eco-protest groups have been a concern for a long time, well prior to the Terrorism Act 2000.  And infiltration of them purely and simply because of the extent of their activities has been going on for a long time too.
> 
> I wouldn't agree that "relatively minor property damage at protests" has been "lumped in the same bracket as blowing up tube trains".  Just because both _could_ fall under the same definition doesn't alter the fact that they are dealt with by entirely seperate units in entirely different ways (terrorism primarily by detectives, protest primarily by uniformed, public order specialist officers).
> 
> I was unaware of any _police_ significant pressure for the change in definition to address the NVDA movement, other than to say that the activities of the international protestors (such as the Wombles) who started to attach themselves to things like the G8 protests did tend to move the threats arising from large-scale protest up to another level of seriousness - whilst the vast majority of demonstrators weren't intent on anything much there were increasing numbers of groups and individuals who were travelling around the world to use large protests as cover for very significant criminal activity (seen in far worse situations in countries elsewhere, but always a possibility here).  I can't speak for political pressure, however.



What did the wombles do?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As I've said, I don't know as I was not involved with the case and the intelligence it was based on is not (and is unlikely to ever be) in the public domain.


 
So how could I find this information out then? Im sure many SP members would be quite disconcerted to discover if we had inadvertantly joined the mafia or something. Likewise with anarchists and eco-protest groups. Most of them never do any damage anyway. When was the last time a member of these groups beat someone up, assaulted someone, stole thousands of pounds etc? 


Im honestly not trying to go at you here but there are so many criminals who get away with their crimes and it just strikes me as a waste of public money, if nothing else.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> We are talking about the eco-protest movement, not Militant.


 
You stated that:



> Infiltration couldn't lawfully be carried out (and wouldn't be carried out by the police anyway) just because they "happened to have different views". It would be because significant crimes (past or, more usually, future) were suspected, associated with the individuals or the group.



I am citing a fairly recent example where this clearly was not the case.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So how could I find this information out then? Im sure many SP members would be quite disconcerted to discover if we had inadvertantly joined the mafia or something.


I doubt if you could.  The organisation that was infiltrated (or any person who knew the undercover officer) could make a complaint about the police action, possibly under the Human Rights Act or questioning ther lawfulness of the operation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act via the Surveillance Commissioners but whilst the matter would be investigated it is unlikely you would get much (if any) of the original intelligence.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I am citing a fairly recent example where this clearly was not the case.


I have no knowledge of Militant being infiltrated or, if they were, by whom or why.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I doubt if you could.  The organisation that was infiltrated (or any person who knew the undercover officer) could make a complaint about the police action, possibly under the Human Rights Act or questioning ther lawfulness of the operation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act via the Surveillance Commissioners but whilst the matter would be investigated it is unlikely you would get much (if any) of the original intelligence.


Why not?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What did the wombles do?


 
wore scary clothes possibly.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I doubt if you could.  The organisation that was infiltrated (or any person who knew the undercover officer) could make a complaint about the police action, possibly under the Human Rights Act or questioning ther lawfulness of the operation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act via the Surveillance Commissioners but whilst the matter would be investigated it is unlikely you would get much (if any) of the original intelligence.


 
So this isnt covered under the freedom of information act?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 29, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What did the wombles do?


 
Had the temerity to protest and don protective clothing from the barrage of baton wielding cops that ensued?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> wore scary clothes possibly.


 
went to dublin


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'd agree that the (ridiculously) wide definition would probably include _some_ activities of eco-protest groups.  But equally I would say that the activities of eco-protest groups have been a concern for a long time, well prior to the Terrorism Act 2000.  And infiltration of them purely and simply because of the extent of their activities has been going on for a long time too.


are you stating this as a fact that you personally know to be the case, or making the same assumptions we've all made about it?



> I wouldn't agree that "relatively minor property damage at protests" has been "lumped in the same bracket as blowing up tube trains".  Just because both _could_ fall under the same definition doesn't alter the fact that they are dealt with by entirely seperate units in entirely different ways (terrorism primarily by detectives, protest primarily by uniformed, public order specialist officers).


for the purposes of passing legislation in parliament to enable the police to harass protestors though it was lumped in with terrorism, meaning that section 44 searches could be used against NVDA protestors, Fairford protestors could be prevented from even getting out of their coaches etc etc.

all without the actual need for parliament to debate laws designed to specifically target the NVDA protest movement, and anyone pointing out that this was where this law was targeted could be dismissed as a tin foil hatter.



> I was unaware of any _police_ significant pressure for the change in definition to address the NVDA movement, other than to say that the activities of the international protestors (such as the Wombles) who started to attach themselves to things like the G8 protests did tend to move the threats arising from large-scale protest up to another level of seriousness - whilst the vast majority of demonstrators weren't intent on anything much there were increasing numbers of groups and individuals who were travelling around the world to use large protests as cover for very significant criminal activity (seen in far worse situations in countries elsewhere, but always a possibility here).  I can't speak for political pressure, however.


While I'm sure there was police pressure applied from some quarters*, I was more referring to pressure from the US, supporters of the neoliberal globalisation process that was being targeted, corporate interests and the likes of Carter Ruck.


*by police pressure, I'm more thinking of them responding to political pressure to do something about stuff like RTS with something like a statement that they were doing all they could within the law as the law stood, and deflecting the onus back onto the politicians to increase their powers, rather than some big campaign.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So this isnt covered under the freedom of information act?


You could try ... but you would get nothing detailed as it would fall under the various exemptions _or_ would amount to personal data and thus be something governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What did the wombles do?


 
talked a good fight mostly from what I could see. Plus from all accounts they managed by accident or design to successfully distract the police at the G8 from focussing on stirling / gleneagles as they were certain the the Wombles were where the trouble would be centred, and they mostly weren't in either place.

funny how 12,000 coppers stops being such a daunting number when they're split into 4 locations across Scotland, the roads suddenly don't work anymore and they have to rely on helicopters to redeploy to where the action actually is...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You could try ... but you would get nothing detailed as it would fall under the various exemptions _or_ would amount to personal data and thus be something governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.


blagsta asked you above for you to expand on your statement implicating the wombles in serious criminal activity. would you care to tell us more please?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You could try ... but you would get nothing detailed as it would fall under the various exemptions _or_ would amount to personal data and thus be something governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.


 
why, though?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

free spirit said:


> are you stating this as a fact that you personally know to be the case, or making the same assumptions we've all made about it?


From stuff that is in the public domain.



> for the purposes of passing legislation in parliament to enable the police to harass protestors though it was lumped in with terrorism, meaning that section 44 searches could be used against NVDA protestors, Fairford protestors could be prevented from even getting out of their coaches etc etc.


It wasn't "lumped in with" terrorism.  Officers dealing with these issues may have seen a power, in s.44, that they could use in relation to the policing of protest.  That does NOT mean that they viewed the protest as being equivalent to "proper" terrorism, simply that the definition was wide enough for the powers to be used.  And of course s.44 doesn't require any individual suspicion at all, so long as the authorisation is in place (which it was virtually everywhere) and so there was no need to equate a protestor with terrorism _at all_ to use s.44.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> From stuff that is in the public domain.



Such as?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> blagsta asked you above for you to expand on your statement implicating the wombles in serious criminal activity. would you care to tell us more please?


I am only aware that the Wombles were one of a number of international protest groups who were associated with serious crime and disorder around major protests in the 90s.  I have no detail.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> why, though?


Because it is.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I am only aware that the Wombles were one of a number of international protest groups who were associated with serious crime and disorder around major protests in the 90s.  I have no detail.


 
What serious crime were the WOMBLES associated with?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I am only aware that the Wombles were one of a number of international protest groups who were associated with serious crime and disorder around major protests in the 90s.  I have no detail.


 
So you don't actually know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because it is.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I am only aware that the Wombles were one of a number of international protest groups who were associated with serious crime and disorder around major protests in the 90s.  I have no detail.


So you admit that you don't know of, or have any, evidence that the wombles were involved in serious criminal activity (as you stated quite explicitly) but you're happy to use them as an example? The simple fact of people organising themselves into protest groups doesn't give justification for the assumption of serious "criminal" behaviour (whatever that might constitute), so I find it quite revealing that this is essentially your starting position for why the police may have pushed for wider powers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> So you admit that you don't know of, or have any, evidence that the wombles were involved in serious criminal activity (as you stated quite explicitly) but you're happy to use them as an example? The simple fact of people organising themselves into protest groups doesn't give justification for the assumption of serious "criminal" behaviour (whatever that might constitute), so I find it quite revealing that this is essentially your starting position for why the police may have pushed for wider powers.


 
like military intelligence, police intelligence is so frequently an oxymoron. like the time i was held in the world's smallest pen because apparently i had made my intentions perfectly clear and intended to throw myself, emily davison like, in front of president bush's cavalcade


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

back to the subject in hand... I wonder if this guy was the driver of the minibus that got properly done over in an obviously preplanned raid as it left the glasgow convergence centre carrying a few wombles and others at the G8. Seems likely that he was either the driver, or was responsible for tipping the police off about it if he was part of the transport block / minibus driving crew.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> What serious crime were the WOMBLES associated with?


 
Daubing circled A's on a wall and wearing ski masks 

(sorry)


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Daubing circled A's on a wall and wearing ski masks
> 
> (sorry)


W / A combos I think you'll find.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because it is.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 30, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> So you admit that you don't know of, or have any, evidence that the wombles were involved in serious criminal activity (as you stated quite explicitly) but you're happy to use them as an example?


I said I had no detail.  I don't.  I do, however, know that there was an extensive investigation conducted by officers from units that I was not attached to that identified a number of groups (the Wombles being only one, memorable only because of their name), many with apparent links to each other, that had been involved in all sorts of serious disorder in the context of large-scale protest in Italy and elsewhere and that that a number of them made varoous appearances at protests in the UK.

Strangely enough, as an individual officer, dealing with something other than public disorder, I was not made aware of the details of the investigation.  It is, frankly, fucking ridiculous to expect that I would ...


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 30, 2010)

What ever became of the Wombles did they collpase back into English anarchism?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 31, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> What ever became of the Wombles did they collpase back into English anarchism?



Two former Wombles published the AFA book.


----------



## ernestolynch (Oct 31, 2010)

The last time anarchists were any kind of 'threat' to the ruling class people were marvelling at horseless carriages.


----------



## Hoxtontwat (Oct 31, 2010)

anarchists still are. Thats how come you can infiltrate us by offering to drive stuff places. Or as a comrade recently said: "Not another van Cop"


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I said I had no detail.  I don't.  I do, however, know that there was an extensive investigation conducted by officers from units that I was not attached to that identified a number of groups (the Wombles being only one, memorable only because of their name), many with apparent links to each other, that had been involved in all sorts of serious disorder in the context of large-scale protest in Italy and elsewhere and that that a number of them made varoous appearances at protests in the UK.
> 
> Strangely enough, as an individual officer, dealing with something other than public disorder, I was not made aware of the details of the investigation.  It is, frankly, fucking ridiculous to expect that I would ...


 What a load of bollocks.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> no detail...extensive investigation...identified a number of groups...apparent links to each other...serious disorder...large-scale protest...public disorder...



"I was proceeding in a southerly direction when two gentlemen of a dusky hue hove into view..."

Pass the doughnuts, Sarge.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 31, 2010)

DaveCinzano said:


> Pass the doughnuts, Sarge.


 that's american coppers. british coppers prefer kebabs.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 31, 2010)

And Spar hot sausage rolls, judging by the numbers who frequent my local shop.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And Spar hot sausage rolls, judging by the numbers who frequent my local shop.


In the US police officers routinely take their refreshment breaks in public restaurants, the idea being that it raised their visibility and improved their involvement in the community they policed.  In the UK it was always the case that the police were quite specifically prevented from doing so.  That does not prevent them obtaining food from fast food outlets, supermarkets, etc. to take back to the police station to consume (there being very, very few 24 hour canteen facilities available any more).

There is a genuine debate to be had here.  Do you think UK police officers should be encouraged to take their refreshments in public restaurants?  If not, do you think that they should be barred from purchasing food whilst on duty (i.e. they should be made to bring food from home / purchase food prior to booking on duty)?  

Personally I have no problem with them purchasing food when on duty ... but they shouldn't do so in uniform and they _certainly_ shouldn't do so on foot and then carry their shopping bags back to the station.  It simply looks scruffy and unprofessional.  I am less convinced about them being alllowed to take their meals in public restaurants.  I think the perception would be that they obtained subsidised or free food from the restaurant whether or not they actually did.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2010)

Astonishing.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 31, 2010)

there's a kebab shop in balham which seems to have a police car parked outside of it permanently, with the coppers sat inside the shop.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 31, 2010)

I can't say I've ever considered it. Everybody has to eat I suppose.

Round here, they get their munch in the Spar (it's 24 hour and is open all night rather than using a hatch) and then often sit in their cars in the car park. Never occurred to me they weren't allowed to go to a caff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In the US police officers routinely take their refreshment breaks in public restaurants, the idea being that it raised their visibility and improved their involvement in the community they policed.  In the UK it was always the case that the police were quite specifically prevented from doing so.  That does not prevent them obtaining food from fast food outlets, supermarkets, etc. to take back to the police station to consume (there being very, very few 24 hour canteen facilities available any more).
> 
> There is a genuine debate to be had here.  Do you think UK police officers should be encouraged to take their refreshments in public restaurants?  If not, do you think that they should be barred from purchasing food whilst on duty (i.e. they should be made to bring food from home / purchase food prior to booking on duty)?
> 
> Personally I have no problem with them purchasing food when on duty ... but they shouldn't do so in uniform and they _certainly_ shouldn't do so on foot and then carry their shopping bags back to the station.  It simply looks scruffy and unprofessional.  I am less convinced about them being alllowed to take their meals in public restaurants.  I think the perception would be that they obtained subsidised or free food from the restaurant whether or not they actually did.


 
All emergency services get a 50% discount at Doiminos pizza. They never used to send uniformed coppers to pick the grub up though.

The old licensing laws had a clause about serving uniformed as well. Given that we don't tend to legislate against problems that do not exist I can only assume some officers were fond of the old 'on the house officer' pint and pie.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 31, 2010)

Perhaps ACPO could commission a working party looking into this important issue. Never mind dead bystanders or wide-ranging espionage on political activists - DonerGate is the hot topic.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

discokermit said:


> there's a kebab shop in balham which seems to have a police car parked outside of it permanently, with the coppers sat inside the shop.


Take the details and complain (if it _really_ is there permanently ... which I suspect it actually _isn't_ ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Never occurred to me they weren't allowed to go to a caff.


Lots of things don't occur to people ... and there is no reason that they would unless someone who knows shared it with them.  That is the main reason that I post here: to try and provide information that people otherwise do not have and to provide perspectives that they may not otherwise consider!


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> All emergency services get a 50% discount at Doiminos pizza.


There is a _major_ ethical issue about subsidised food for police officers.  They should NOT accept discounted food unless it is part of some centrally negotiated arrangement available to all officers and endorsed by force management or, rarely, if authorised in exceptional circumstances.  Any gifts or subsidised items that they receive in the course of their duties should be reported and recorded in a log kept on every division.  Make a FoI request about your local one if you want to know what is in it.  Make a complaint if you are concerned about it if you have evidence of officers receiving free or discounted food so that the circumstances (including whether or not it was authorised / recorded can be investigated).



> The old licensing laws had a clause about serving uniformed as well. Given that we don't tend to legislate against problems that do not exist I can only assume some officers were fond of the old 'on the house officer' pint and pie.


That dates from the days when officers walked their beats, especially at night, when they were prone to going to the back doors of pubs on their beat for a pint (or more!).  There was also a requirement that officers had to seek the _prior_ authorisation of the duty Inspector before entering licensed premises for _any_ reason (unless it was an emergency situation, in which case it had to be reported as soon as practicable afterwards) ... but that has gone too as I was reflecting the other night as I saw two PCSOs wander into an off-licence, apparently to purchase chewing gum, whilst I was at a bus stop the other night.  I know these rules can appear petty and micro-management but, taken together, they provided a degree of oversight and supervision of police officers which simply is not there at all anymore and which I am increasingly convinced has contributed to many of the problems with patrol policing that we now see.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

DaveCinzano said:


> Perhaps ACPO could commission a working party looking into this important issue. Never mind dead bystanders or wide-ranging espionage on political activists - DonerGate is the hot topic.


Congratulations on your membership of the "Either / Or" Association.  There are _lots_ of important issues which need to be considered.  Organisations are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.  The fact they are doing one thing doesn't mean they are not doing any other.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 31, 2010)

ironically under Licensing laws... it is illegal to serve drunk people, known prostitutes or police on duty...


----------



## discokermit (Oct 31, 2010)

DaveCinzano said:


> Perhaps ACPO could commission a working party looking into this important issue. Never mind dead bystanders or wide-ranging espionage on political activists - DonerGate is the hot topic.


 
it's a legitimate complaint. they don't spend all of their time hating people, they spend at least half of it stuffing their lazy greedy faces _and_ hating people.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Personally I have no problem with them purchasing food when on duty ... but they shouldn't do so in uniform and they _certainly_ shouldn't do so on foot and then carry their shopping bags back to the station.  It simply looks scruffy and unprofessional.



I clocked a cop having a sneaky ciggy down an alley last year. I considered taking a photo but then got distracted by something or couldn't be arsed or something.


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I do, however, know that there was an extensive investigation conducted by officers from units that I was not attached to that identified a number of groups (the Wombles being only one, memorable only because of their name), many with apparent links to each other, that had been involved in all sorts of serious disorder in the context of large-scale protest in Italy and elsewhere and that that a number of them made varoous appearances at protests in the UK.


 
That investigation wouldn't have involved taking at face value "intelligence" "shared" by any of the multifarious and nefarious Italian police forces - would it?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ironically under Licensing laws... it is illegal to serve drunk people, known prostitutes or police on duty...


Are you sure?  Whilst the Licensing Act 2003 retained an offence in relation to drunkenness it did not, so far as I recall, include offences in relation to prostitutes or police officers on duty.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I clocked a cop having a sneaky ciggy down an alley last year.


That sounds like they were demonstrating that they were just an ordinary person, with ordinary frailties.  Something that I thought that you wanted them to be ... 

Whilst I would expect a supervising officer to give them a bollocking, I wouldn't expect members of the public (except the really sad, no-life moaners who see kids kicking a football in the park as "anti-social behaviour" and who tend to take over consultative meetings) to make an official complaint about it.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 31, 2010)

laptop said:


> That investigation wouldn't have involved taking at face value "intelligence" "shared" by any of the multifarious and nefarious Italian police forces - would it?


It would certainly involve consideration of intelligence received from foreign police forces, yes.  Whether it was taken at face value or not I do not know.  It certainly _shouldn't_ have been if intelligence handling guidelines had been applied but, as I have said before, I wasn't involved in the actual investigation so I don't know.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That sounds like they were demonstrating that they were just an ordinary person, with ordinary frailties.  Something that I thought that you wanted them to be ...
> 
> Whilst I would expect a supervising officer to give them a bollocking, I wouldn't expect members of the public (except the really sad, no-life moaners who see kids kicking a football in the park as "anti-social behaviour" and who tend to take over consultative meetings) to make an official complaint about it.



Well I didn't. So put your nob back in your pants.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Organisations are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.


 
Aye - killing *and* spying


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ah shit - I know him - and thought he was sound - nice guy etc.
> 
> I know a few people who were very close to him - they must be feeling shit.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry to hear that Kaka... its interesting to hear from experienced people who have known these sorts of people...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I said I had no detail.  I don't.  I do, however, know that there was an extensive investigation conducted by officers from units that I was not attached to that identified a number of groups (the Wombles being only one, memorable only because of their name), many with apparent links to each other, that had been involved in all sorts of serious disorder in the context of large-scale protest in Italy and elsewhere and that that a number of them made varoous appearances at protests in the UK.


that's waaay too vague and insubstantial for 'serious crime' tho'. Mugging, burglary, GH - that's 'serious crime', IMO.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Cunt even looks like bono


what a fucking cunt


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 3, 2010)

in case anyone missed this fucking cunt at all?

don't invite him round for dinnner at the very least......

cunt!!!!!


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2010)

in some parts of the UK cops will get free food from takeaways just for wearing uniform.

strange but true.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 3, 2010)

piss in their helmets and they have to give you a lift home.

fact.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> - that's 'serious crime', IMO.


Maybe.  But other people have other opinions.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 4, 2010)

I hope he kept his nob out the way.

I wouldn't like to find out I've been shagging undercover plod.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In the US police officers routinely take their refreshment breaks in public restaurants, the idea being that it raised their visibility and improved their involvement in the community they policed.  In the UK it was always the case that the police were quite specifically prevented from doing so.  That does not prevent them obtaining food from fast food outlets, supermarkets, etc. to take back to the police station to consume (there being very, very few 24 hour canteen facilities available any more).
> 
> There is a genuine debate to be had here.  Do you think UK police officers should be encouraged to take their refreshments in public restaurants?  If not, do you think that they should be barred from purchasing food whilst on duty (i.e. they should be made to bring food from home / purchase food prior to booking on duty)?
> 
> Personally I have no problem with them purchasing food when on duty ... but they shouldn't do so in uniform and they _certainly_ shouldn't do so on foot and then carry their shopping bags back to the station.  It simply looks scruffy and unprofessional.  I am less convinced about them being alllowed to take their meals in public restaurants.  I think the perception would be that they obtained subsidised or free food from the restaurant whether or not they actually did.


 
  I thought the Yanks encouraged that when loons started going postal in burger kings etc.


----------



## winjer (Dec 19, 2010)

The Sunday Times has an article about him today, doesn't add anything to what's already been written that I can see.

Here, but paywalled:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article484345.ece


----------



## Thora (Dec 19, 2010)

A police officer spent seven years undercover living as a hippie and environmental activist to infiltrate peaceful protest groups



He drank with them, he climbed with them, he even seemed to love them and was loved in return. But Mark “Flash” Stone was living a double life as perhaps the most deeply embedded undercover police officer in Britain.

Questions are being asked this weekend as to what the police officer achieved in seven years, living at the taxpayers’ expense as a hippie and environmental activist. He infiltrated protest groups that were mainly peaceful in nature, moved in with them and travelled to Iceland and all over Europe.

His double existence ended when friends discovered documents showing his true identity, leaving a trail of emotional wreckage and a sense of bewilderment that the authorities should invest so much time for a seemingly modest reward.

Stone — real name Mark Kennedy — was among 114 people arrested last year on the eve of a planned invasion of a power station. The aim was to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire for a week, preventing the release of 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide from one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in Europe.

He drove the car on the initial reconnaissance and even hired a 7½-ton truck for the main event. But charges against him were dropped, leaving 20 others to be convicted last week of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass.

With his long hair, tattoos and body piercings, nobody suspected that their comrade in saving the planet was a detective. But Stone is thought to be a member of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit known as “the Hairies” because officers can wear their hair as they please.

According to one former member, only married officers are accepted into the unit, as they are less likely to “go native” if they have families to return to.

Called “Flash” because he had more money than other activists, Stone became a familiar face in Nottingham, hanging about at the Sumac centre, a vegan cafe and social club for people concerned with human and animal rights, the environment and pacifism. He lived with activists in the city.

His former friends say he was vehemently anti-police, a pose slightly at odds with a community more inclined to organise workshops on what they perceive as “bad policing” than to fight about it.

For the takeover of the power station, the protesters drew up health-and-safety plans and a rule that there would be no violence. They were to stop the conveyor carrying coal into the boilers, climb the 653ft chimney and unfurl protest banners.

The workers would be given leaflets reassuring them that jobs could be created by greener energy, while costlier but cleaner gas-fired stations would come on line to supply the National Grid, keeping the nation’s lights on.

Eon, the owner of the station, knew about the action five days beforehand and could have sought an injunction. Instead, the protesters were allowed to assemble and were then arrested.

Stone was unmasked as a suspected police officer 18 months later, just before the trial. Confronted by six friends with paperwork showing his real name, he admitted being in the Metropolitan police. The six published a short account of his confession in the green media, to general disbelief.

“Look at the bloke,” said one activist. “What did they do, send him from Hendon [police training centre] to spend five years smoking rollies and living in a tent? It boggles the mind that he’s spent so long doing basically f***-all, expending so much effort in terms of debate, slow, dull legwork and campaigning — and still be thinking, ‘Aha, fooling these oh-so-dangerous activists brilliantly’.”

Last week two police forces confirmed Stone’s status to The Sunday Times. “The individual is a Met officer,” said Nottinghamshire police. “He’s an undercover officer,” said the Metropolitan police. “We can’t say more.”

Scotland Yard refused requests for information about the SDS, a unit of the Met with a remit to prevent disorder. It was set up in 1968 after violence at anti-Vietnam war protests.

An insight into its methods came this year, when an SDS officer from the 1990s described his work. For four years the officer, Peter Daley, spent one day a week with his wife and family and six as a hate-filled Trotskyist on the wrong side of a riot shield. He was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and won an out-of-court settlement.

Stone has disappeared from Nottingham, leaving friends in shock. One said: “Whatever else Mark is, I do believe he had genuine feelings for those he had meaningful relationships with in the last seven years.”

The friend added: “I don’t believe he could be with such beautiful, wonderful people and not feel love.”

The protesters will be sentenced next month.


----------



## Random (Dec 19, 2010)

I think several of those protestors' and friends' comments are actually just c+p'd from Indymedia.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 19, 2010)

Random said:


> I think several of those protestors' and friends' comments are actually just c+p'd from Indymedia.


 
Yep, quality journalism as always.


----------



## Random (Dec 19, 2010)

Iirc the Sunday Times is also the Brit paper with teh closest ties to the security services. Which makes one wonder about their motivation for writing this.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 19, 2010)

Random said:


> Iirc the Sunday Times is also the Brit paper with teh closest ties to the security services. Which makes one wonder about their motivation for writing this.


 
This week, following a step-up in leftwing political activity and confrontations with the police? After Millbank, when the police were widely acknowledged to have been caught off guard? Can't imagine for the life of me what message they'd be trying to send.


----------



## LiamO (Dec 19, 2010)

Thora said:


> For four years the officer, Peter Daley, spent one day a week with his wife and family and six as a hate-filled Trotskyist on the wrong side of a riot shield. He was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and won an out-of-court settlement. .


 
Anyone have a photo of this Daley cunt?


----------



## winjer (Dec 19, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> This week, following a step-up in leftwing political activity and confrontations with the police?


No need to get all wikileaks about it, it's also the week the Ratcliffe trial ended, which Kennedy was involved in.



> After Millbank, when the police were widely acknowledged to have been caught off guard?


Less widely acknowledged was the Met saying that Millbank wasn't down to activists, and undermining the case others had made for greater surveillance.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Dec 19, 2010)

Times said:


> Scotland Yard refused requests for information about the SDS, a unit of the Met with *a remit to prevent disorder* . It was set up in 1968 after violence at anti-Vietnam war protests.
> 
> 
> .



To sow disorder rather than prevent it surely


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 19, 2010)

Random said:


> Iirc the Sunday Times is also the Brit paper with teh closest ties to the security services.


 
I'm not sure you could really quantify such a thing - is the _Sunday Times_ more spook-receptive than its daily sister paper, or one of the _Telegraph_ group papers, or _The Guardian_, or _The Independent_ or _IoS_, or the _Observer_? Each has been more than comfortable passing off uncorroborated off-the-record tittle-tattle or 'briefings' or word-in-your-shell-like 'tip-offs' as genuine, journalistically-obtained scoops. 

Samurai swords, 'eco-terrorist' tree spiking, packed lunches & expenses for protesting rentamob, Class War is full of fascists, the EVIL WOMBLES are behind everything, and plenty more spring to mind from recent years, and not just confined to one paper.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 19, 2010)

i don't think right-wing loons need the media to make things up for them. there were some classic comments on an article in the bucks free press on the Medriest strike the other day on the line of, "protesters being shipped down from Liverpool" and the like


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

Thora said:


> [...] real name Mark Kennedy [...]



So is this actually his 'real' name that they're publishing? By doing so, will he be requiring a new one?

The cunt won't know whether he's coming or going. I hope he doesn't use a cheque book.


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen.  I have criticised them on many occasions.  But they are NOT the norm.  (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)


 

I could provide a very long list of times over the years when I have seen cops behave in violent, corrupt and disgusting ways.  Seriously I could write pages and pages of highly critical accounts of what I have experienced and seen. 

I have 2 different groups of friends who have lost friends and family members in police custody, one time was a death in extremely suspicious circumstances with many elements not adding up, the other when the victim died in ICU a year and a day exactly after the police seriously assaulted him as a result of injuries received during the assault. 

I have also encountered cops who are arrogant, lazy and incompetent, also some who were well meaning yet not very clever. 

Having said that, I have met a few highly intelligent cops, some who are genuinely caring and professional.  I have also met cops who I consider to be good cops but who (for various reasons I cannot go into) I think that DB would disagree with me. 

Now, regarding this "tout" thing (I had no idea what the word meant prior to reading this), of course it is important for there to be undercover cops reporting on serious crime issues. 

The thing that is pissing people off here is that the cop infiltrated a a political moment and social group that some of you here were / are involved in. 

I can understand the anger with the feeling of betrayal, but (perhaps I'm being naive here) surely he only would have relayed information about serious and violent crimes?  

I don't know how it works but if he had reported information that actually helped to protect you from harm would you still hate him so much?

I'm just thinking aloud about this as someone who didn't know the man.  I'm sure that had I thought him to be a friend and been betrayed by him I would have felt differently but I am genuinely curious about people's feelings about him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 19, 2010)

cunt's trick whatever happened.


----------



## yield (Dec 19, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Anyone have a photo of this Daley cunt?



Another article about him and the SDS. No photo.
Inside the lonely and violent world of the Yard's elite undercover unit 
The Observer, Sunday 14 March 2010


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 19, 2010)

Also, one thing I don't understand, is that he is referred to in the news stories as a "hardcore Trotskyist agitator".

I thought that everyone here hates trots. 

Or is that just Ern?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 19, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> Also, one thing I don't understand, is that he is referred to in the news stories as a "hardcore Trotskyist agitator".
> 
> I thought that everyone here hates trots.
> 
> Or is that just Ern?


same way as the "liberal" grauniad always refers to Ahmadinejad as being "hardline"


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 19, 2010)

'A hate-filled trotskyist on the wrong side of a riot shield'

Which side is that then?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 19, 2010)

yield said:


> Another article about him and the SDS. No photo.
> Inside the lonely and violent world of the Yard's elite undercover unit
> The Observer, Sunday 14 March 2010





> Officer A's initial target was a young student union activist who was a key member of an up-and-coming Trotskyist organisation that had led a violent protest against BNP paper-sellers in Brick Lane, east London. The organisation was considered one of the most violent in the capital at the time and its leader soon became a priority SDS target.



Is this about Red Action?


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 19, 2010)

Also I am genuinely curious to know what these undercover cops are allowed to do whilst in their "role"


To what extent can they break the law and get away with it?

Are they allowed to take illegal drugs?  If so how are they allowed to go?  it is like, a couple of drags on a spliff is OK but a full on debauched crack / meth smoking session is not or does it all depend on the circumstances?

Have sex with their "targets"?

Take part in serious crimes?

Violently assault criminals / innocent members of the public / uniformed cops?

I'm genuinely curious about this


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 19, 2010)

watch reservoir dogs and _go fuck yeh!!!_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Is this about Red Action?


 
This was about Youth Against Racism in Europe iirc a militant/socialist party linked group/front.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This was about Youth Against Racism in Europe iirc a militant/socialist party linked group/front.


 
Ahhhh, cheers.


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 19, 2010)

As far as undercover policing goes this must be pretty cushy stuff. The dudes that infiltrate the gangs in NZ are nails though, one of the told a story about someone coming into a room where he and a couple of other guys were sitting and saying 'one of you is a cop'. A load of heavies then busted in, took out one of the other guys and within earshot beat him to death with a baseball bat. 

Which is hardly going to happen with Plane Stupid.


----------



## paolo (Dec 19, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> As far as undercover policing goes this must be pretty cushy stuff. The dudes that infiltrate the gangs in NZ are nails though, one of the told a story about someone coming into a room where he and a couple of other guys were sitting and saying 'one of you is a cop'. A load of heavies then busted in, took out one of the other guys and within earshot beat him to death with a baseball bat.
> 
> Which is hardly going to happen with Plane Stupid.



Plenty of countries will do undercover on gangs, organised crime etc. NZ won't be unique in that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

Teh hippies need to sort their vetting process out. It isn't fucking difficult to check a person's background. If it's uncheckable then no intimacy with the fabled barge poles.


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 19, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> As far as undercover policing goes this must be pretty cushy stuff. The dudes that infiltrate the gangs in NZ are nails though, one of the told a story about someone coming into a room where he and a couple of other guys were sitting and saying 'one of you is a cop'. A load of heavies then busted in, took out one of the other guys and within earshot beat him to death with a baseball bat. .



That kind of stuff happens with hippies and new age communities too, it's just that the violent people have youtube channels and PR professionals to create a nice shiny brand for them to hide behind. 

I LOL'ed when I read this post on a message board as it has everything, aliens, new agers with crystals, Eastern European drug dealers, attempted murders, it's just a great value post really 



> Re: Drunvalo Melchizedek......who is financially backing him?	Quote
> 
> in 98 or so Drunvalo attempted to infiltrate my house with his assistant RON HOLT * via Dan Winter, and have me killed.. (long story) they have a bank- roller from i think it is Czechlosvakia.. who is a big drug dealer. who came here with ZIP!. named ´YERKA´ who also financed first HOAGLAND.. he bought THE SNAKE MAKZDAK.. DRU.. a home in Prescott AZ for 1 million.. Dan Winter also tried to get this drug lords $$.. his name sounds like YERKA or URKA.. ( but is spelled differently.. i have forgotten) the police also wanted Drunvalo and were after him for running drugs.. but he lives in one of the wealthiest- communities in PHX CAREFREE a gated community.. or did.. ( i dont currently follow this snake)
> RON HOLT ( i did his photo and his wife´s who LYSSA ROYAL who channels the GREYS)) were full of parasites.. galore.. ) they are all as ´evil´ as they come.. his ORIGINAL facilitator who left him.. DAWN BOTHIE-from Hawaii.. was devestated when she found out how ruthless & fraudulent he was..& became my good friend.. which really URKED DRUNVALO.. BRADEN was made a MELCHIZEDEK SNAKE .. at his home in Prescott in about 1998 .. after he went to JEKYL ISLAND with DRU... two of my close friends were Bradens once.. Braden will no longer talk with them......
> ...



it gets even better 

more here 

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message138214/pg1

eta

I'm aware that it's a conspiracy forum, but seriously, when conspiraloons start to question the motives of alien channeling new age gurus you just know that there's something seriously wrong.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

Better? It's unreadable.


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 19, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Better? It's unreadable.



For god's sake man put some effort in 

I will help u 



> the story is posted somewhere.. and on the list i have d ragonslayers.. unless YAHOO has deleted it..
> 
> briefly this is it.. i had a meeting about the alien issues.. some drgonslayers came and dan winter asked me if ron holt could come.. i said NO! and then he kept asking and said ron wouldnt cause trouble.. DAH.. well i said finally OK.. my fault.. there.. and i had some NDN friends there too.. Ron went s t raight for Sweet Medicine and t ried to re c ruit him.. *Dru and Ron offered SM $$$ women and drugs.*. *and went over to Dru´s and Ron´s House where Lysssa Royal tried to have s e x with SM ..* they knew his allegiences to AIM etc.. and his run in with the system.. anyway *Dru showed him his bedroom with lots of weapons Rocket launchers etc.. and asked him to kill me with a silencer i. SM said NO!.. he still liked me.. etc*. and came back to tell me what happened.. he was very scared..for me and my family and called Denise Banks.. AIM.. my husband called the POLICE.. and a friend of his in SWA T.. they knew a bout D runvalo.. but said they probably couldnt help.. *so Denise called Dru and said.. IF U HARM BARBARA OR SM OR HER FAMILY WE WILL KILL U!.*. he meant it.. and ofcourse after that ALL WAS QUIET!..
> thats basically it.. i have had no more contact with DRU and his fiends.. as far as i know.. he moved from TEXAS to SEDONA to PHX.. and i was horrified.. he followed me everywhere.. he has been married se v eral times.. and says *his son by a previous wife will lead the world.. of the so called INDIGO CHILDREN.*... btw.. if i remember AIM was already at that time infiltrat ing that snakes lair.. because they ALREADY KNEW!
> ...



It is the mix of Indigo Children. aliens and serious organised crime that makes me smile.  It is serious of course.  But once you get aliens, channelling and Indigo Children into the mix people do find it hard to take any kind of threat seriously.  Which is a mistake.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

The author was on meth. I need some to decipher that text.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> Also I am genuinely curious to know what these undercover cops are allowed to do whilst in their "role"


Theoretically they have no defence to any criminal offence.  In practice it is accepted that in order to maintain their cover it may well be necessary for them to commit minor offences.  What depends on context and situation.  They are certainly not allowed (in law or practice) to engage in any serious crimes (which would include anything other than common assault, _possibly_ ABH level use of force) nor to act as an agent provocateur.  They can go along with some plan by others.  They can't suggest or lead that plan.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

Collaboration is entrapment.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 20, 2010)

The Case "Simon Brenner"- German undercover agent
lest we forget the German tout...

On Sunday the 12th of December 2010 a undercover agent working for the Landeskriminalamt (LKA) Baden-Württemberg was uncovered in Heidelberg, Germany. His aim was to make contact with the Antifa scene via open left structures and to gather information about individuals as well as group structures to be presented directly to the LKA and the local state security division.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2010)

Random said:


> Iirc the Sunday Times is also the Brit paper with teh closest ties to the security services. Which makes one wonder about their motivation for writing this.


 
Nah, 'tis _The Daily Telegraph_ that has that honour. It shovels more spook shit than any two other dailies put together


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2010)

Superdupastupor said:


> To sow disorder rather than prevent it surely


 
Surely you're not insinuating that the police would get involved with sending _agent provocateurs_ into what should be matters of normal public order policing?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I can understand the anger with the feeling of betrayal, but (perhaps I'm being naive here) surely he only would have relayed information about serious and violent crimes?


If he was being thoroughly and regularly debriefed (and I'm not aware of Met policy on the matter, but I can't see that they'd let their operatives go un-debriefed for long lengths of time), then he'd pass on information on *anything* he considered relevant to his remit, up to and including membership lists and personal info he could garner about fellow activists, not just stuff on serious and violent crimes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Teh hippies need to sort their vetting process out. It isn't fucking difficult to check a person's background. If it's uncheckable then no intimacy with the fabled barge poles.


 
Not hard to set up a viable legend, though, especially if you're with "the man".


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, 'tis _The Daily Telegraph_ that has that honour. It shovels more spook shit than any two other dailies put together


Yeah I was going to say that, it was the Tele which just happened to find those papers in Iraq alleging Galloway was corrupt.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Dec 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely you're not insinuating that the police would get involved with sending _agent provocateurs_ into what should be matters of normal public order policing?


 
_I wouldn't dare to_ 


I wouldn't even know where to begin with that sort of subversive thinking.

(  special  "Special Demonstration Squad" knowing nod  )


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If he was being thoroughly and regularly debriefed (and I'm not aware of Met policy on the matter, but I can't see that they'd let their operatives go un-debriefed for long lengths of time), then he'd pass on information on *anything* he considered relevant to his remit, up to and including membership lists and personal info he could garner about fellow activists, not just stuff on serious and violent crimes.


 
I can appreciate how people would feel betrayed if he was doing that, but (and I'm making an effort to put myself in his shoes) he started off as an undercover cop whose job was to prevent violent extremists from hurting people and ended up infiltrating groups of friends and families who had lost loved ones in police custody, I can understand how he must have ended up feeling extremely conflicted and guilty about his job. 

From the news story linked to earlier here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/14/undercover-police-far-left-secret

It looks like he actually achieved some important stuff, for example



> Officer A wasn't the only one attacking his former colleagues. At the time of his deployment, other SDS officers had infiltrated opposing right-wing groups such as the BNP and Combat 18, as well as other far-left groups. It was a time of extreme racial tension and violent clashes with the police and rival political parties were rife. Two weeks later, Officer A took part in a much larger, far more violent, protest in Welling, south-east London, against a BNP-run bookshop that served as the party's headquarters. Intelligence he obtained revealed that the demo was to be far larger than had been expected and that a particularly violent faction was planning to storm the bookshop and set fire to it, trapping any BNP members inside.
> 
> As a result, police leave was cancelled for that weekend and more than 7,000 officers, including a large mounted contingent, were deployed. Instead of being spread out along the entire route, police focused on blocking the main roads leading to the bookshop and forcing the march along a route that would take it away from its target. A violent confrontation ensued with a group of hardcore protesters – Officer A among them – attacking the police lines in an attempt to break through. Dozens of police and protesters were injured in the clashes.
> 
> ...



I hate the BNP as much as the next person, but setting fire to a building and burning them alive cannot be a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.  Not only would it be murder (which is wrong - obviously) but it would likely spark a backlash of right wing extremists and racists going on the rampage and attacking innocent people. 

From reading that article (and I appreciate that it probably does not contain the entire truth about everything) it seems to me that he was a good undercover cop who ended up saving many lives and doing a good job, but who ultimately had a breakdown because he actually genuinely liked and agreed with some of the people he was meant to be targeting.

You cannot doubt his courage, given the violent situations he was involved in.  He does not sound like a bad person to me, just like someone who did his best to do his job and ended up broken because of conflicting loyalties and guilt, something that a bad person would not allow themselves to be bothered by.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 20, 2010)

Deeply naive.


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 20, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Deeply naive.


 

Quite possibly.

I can understand why violent extremist groups need to be monitored but it sickens me that groups of friends and families of people who have died in custody are monitored.  People I love are in those groups, good, decent law abiding people who simply want justice for their loved ones.  Those people are the victims of serious crimes and should be supported, not spied upon. 

Re this undercover cop, it seems to me like he must have had a "Starship Troopers" moment.  He starts off thinking that he's fighting the good fight but ends up questioning the morality of his actions and of the people on his "side". 

Youc an't deny that he has courage, not only for being prepared to risk his safety and his life to do his job, but also in as much as he was prepared to talk to the press about his concerns and inner conflicts regarding the legitimacy (or not) of spying on friends and families.   That can't have been the best career move and will have made him many powerful enemies.

He's probably now hated by pretty much everyone on all sides.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 20, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I can appreciate how people would feel betrayed if he was doing that, but (and I'm making an effort to put myself in his shoes) he started off as an undercover cop whose job was to prevent violent extremists from hurting people and ended up infiltrating groups of friends and families who had lost loved ones in police custody, I can understand how he must have ended up feeling extremely conflicted and guilty about his job.
> 
> From the news story linked to earlier here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/14/undercover-police-far-left-secret
> 
> ...


If that cunt was responsible for the police actions at Welling, then he deserves to feel guilty for the remainder of his life. Utter cunt, no sympathy whatsoever. You make your bed and you lie in it.


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 20, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> If that cunt was responsible for the police actions at Welling, then he deserves to feel guilty for the remainder of his life. Utter cunt, no sympathy whatsoever. You make your bed and you lie in it.


 
What happened at Welling?  Do you think that the news report is biased / inaccurate? 

I don't know anything about that incident other than what I just read here.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> If that cunt was responsible for the police actions at Welling, then he deserves to feel guilty for the remainder of his life. Utter cunt, no sympathy whatsoever. You make your bed and you lie in it.


 
Different 'operations' are getting mixed up here - the YRE one and this 'kennedy' one.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2010)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not sure you could really quantify such a thing - is the _Sunday Times_ more spook-receptive than its daily sister paper, or one of the _Telegraph_ group papers, or _The Guardian_, or _The Independent_ or _IoS_, or the _Observer_? Each has been more than comfortable passing off uncorroborated off-the-record tittle-tattle or 'briefings' or word-in-your-shell-like 'tip-offs' as genuine, journalistically-obtained scoops.
> 
> Samurai swords, 'eco-terrorist' tree spiking, packed lunches & expenses for protesting rentamob, Class War is full of fascists, the EVIL WOMBLES are behind everything, and plenty more spring to mind from recent years, and not just confined to one paper.


actually, that's a really good point; they really ARE all as bad as each other!


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 20, 2010)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm not sure you could really quantify such a thing - is the _Sunday Times_ more spook-receptive than its daily sister paper, or one of the _Telegraph_ group papers, or _The Guardian_, or _The Independent_ or _IoS_, or the _Observer_? Each has been more than comfortable passing off uncorroborated off-the-record tittle-tattle or 'briefings' or word-in-your-shell-like 'tip-offs' as genuine, journalistically-obtained scoops.
> 
> Samurai swords, 'eco-terrorist' tree spiking, packed lunches & expenses for protesting rentamob, Class War is full of fascists, the EVIL WOMBLES are behind everything, and plenty more spring to mind from recent years, and not just confined to one paper.


 
The latter point is true but the ST, and in particular David Leppard, are notable as the Chapman Pincher de nos jours - the urinal into which the security services are fondest of leaking.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tout
> 
> Bristol and notts people - check your contacts, check your lists.


 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/09/undercover-office-green-activists


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2011)

worth noting for the future, every agent is a potential double agent


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jan 9, 2011)

Is it just me or does the latest development have a touch of the Shaylers about it?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2011)

yeah i thought that, double bluff, farm the useless fucker out to the hippies, theyll swallow any old crap


----------



## elbows (Jan 9, 2011)

lol that the agent provocateur possibility seems to have knackered a court case.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 10, 2011)

If he is out of work im sure he could put himself to use with the SSP, they would never suss him.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 10, 2011)

According to the bbc he as switched side 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753

I am sure he will be welcomed back with open arms


----------



## pk (Jan 10, 2011)

LOL, unbelievable!

Needs a new thread, surely?

Great to see the Met squirm their way through this one in the morning!


----------



## Riklet (Jan 10, 2011)

Result ehh.  What ever he's done, that's a good action - fundamentally the right thing to do, testifying against would be just one more betrayal of trust.  "Switched sides" maybe not haha, but even real rotters can do some nice things huh? 

I really can't fathom how he could comit that level of betrayal personally, against such fundamentally non-threatening individuals, the idea of serving the public's wider interests through such undercover work is fucking laughable.  Hard to know what to think about him completely as a person though, regardless of the things he's done... hmm conflicted he must be!


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2011)

slight derail, but how does this work then....


> He lived a double life: as Mark Kennedy of the Metropolitan Police he had a wife and children; but as Mark Stone, green activist, he had an unsuspecting girlfriend in Nottingham


oh yeah sorry love I had to shack up with her to maintain my cover...

still trying to picture him as he was in 2005.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 10, 2011)

If you're deep undercover, it's police rules you start smoking roll ups and get balls deep into some hippy chick.  Detectiveboy will confirm blates.

I bet the wife is less than impressed.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 10, 2011)

Something tells me that he will not be getting his police pension. I wonder if they will claim back his salary for the years when he was supposed to be working under cover for the Met. He cannot claim to have delivered the goods if he became a witness for the campaigners when it came to the trial. My crystal ball goes cloudy when I try to look into his future. Is he a now goodun or a badun?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2011)

He is a badun.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 10, 2011)

Guaridan piece on this today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-cop-activist


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 10, 2011)

He's quit the cops now.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 10, 2011)

I hope he writes a book about his experiences because potentially he could spill the beans on the entire operation, not just his involvement. Presumably he's not covered by the Official Secrets Act so he can now say what he likes.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 10, 2011)

Big item on this on radio 4 today programme this morning. And a special report on newsnight tonight apparently - 10.30pm BBC2.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 10, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I hope he writes a book about his experiences because potentially he could spill the beans on the entire operation, not just his involvement. Presumably he's not covered by the Official Secrets Act so he can now say what he likes.



Why wouldn't he be covered by the Official Secrets Act?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 10, 2011)

I dunno, maybe is.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 10, 2011)

Im not suprised he's had a 'crisis' of faith. 

He spent years enthusiasticlly shagging, partying and necking class As inbetween the odd bit of activism - and  all the while getting _paid_ for it. 

During that time he became a close friend to many people in the scene, went on climbing holidays with them and had at least two serious long term girlfriends. You cant do that sort of thing without it becoming 'real' in some way - without seeing this people as your actual mates and lovers. (And he did come accross as a genuninely warm and friendly bloke). 

Everynow and then he goes back to his 'real' life of routine domesticity and his charming police mates. And then betrays his supposedly 'pretend' freinds, comrades and lovers to his handlers.

How can you get that involved without being affected?

If your working in a way where you could convine your self that you were  _genuinely_ protecting society from serious violence and death then its easier to justify playing judas to yourself. 

But if your deciveing and betraying people who love you in order to prevent them biulding treehouses in threatened woodland, glueing up the locks of a corporate office or dropping a banner of a cooling tower...? 

That must really fuck with your head. Even if your a copper.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 10, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I dunno, maybe is.



I believe the Official Secrets Act would apply, and I suspect this will have been drawn to his attention.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 10, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Im not suprised he's had a 'crisis' of faith.
> 
> He spent years enthusiasticlly shagging, partying and necking class As inbetween the odd bit of activism - and  all the while getting _paid_ for it.
> 
> ...



I thought he was going to be like that undercover cop from Hill Street Blues, and just lived the life, but occasionally tipped off the coppers or whatever. What amazed me was the statement that he had a wife and children in his police/official life. How did that work?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 10, 2011)

Guineveretoo said:


> I thought he was going to be like that undercover cop from Hill Street Blues, and just lived the life, but occasionally tipped off the coppers or whatever. What amazed me was the statement that he had a wife and children in his police/official life. How did that work?



For_ ten years_ as well.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jan 10, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2011)

MysteryGuest said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753


 
grounds for appeal for the 20 convicted, i'd have thought.


----------



## Garek (Jan 10, 2011)

Question now has to be who else is out there, and how many? 10? 20? More? It can't be that many due to the logistics and cost. But this sort of things certainly inflames any underlying suspicions you might have about the veracity of someone within a group.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> Is it just me or does the latest development have a touch of the Shaylers about it?


 
You mean when he *stops* the weed he'll discover he's the Messiah, also?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 10, 2011)

Guineveretoo said:


> I believe the Official Secrets Act would apply, and I suspect this will have been drawn to his attention.


 
The official secrets act applies when you temp at the post office - I can see no reason why it wouldnt apply here.

Fascinating story.  Really must sting for those that had been close to him.  A couple of lessons to be learned (primarily, if someone has loads of cash they are willing to put toward the "cause", this could be an indicator of undercover...).  Interesting to see him so confused now.  He must have genuinely liked the people he was spying on.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> grounds for appeal for the 20 convicted, i'd have thought.


 
they were charged with a different offence.  E2A, actually, I think i'm wrong there.  ignore.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 10, 2011)

This guy must be totally frazzled, he's betrayed everyone (friends, girlfriends, his wife and kids) and now seemingly he's betraying his employer and whatever oaths coppers have to take.

Obviously I've got no sympathy but he must feel completly fucked, where does he go from here?


----------



## Idaho (Jan 10, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> The official secrets act applies when you temp at the post office - I can see no reason why it wouldnt apply here.


 
The Official Secrets Act applies whoever you are and whatever you are doing in the UK. The act of signing it is merely a reminder.


----------



## Garek (Jan 10, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Obviously I've got no sympathy but he must feel completly fucked, where does he go from here?


 
The bottle and Beachy Head?


----------



## pk (Jan 10, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> he must feel completly fucked, where does he go from here?



Back to the receiving end with the rest of us...


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 10, 2011)

Garek said:


> The bottle and Beachy Head?


 
Seems likely.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 10, 2011)

Allegedly, he is out of the country. I wonder if he has been given a new identity to protect/hide him and, if so, whether that will now be revealed since he has, seemingly, turned against his employers.


----------



## tastebud (Jan 10, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Im not suprised he's had a 'crisis' of faith.
> 
> He spent years enthusiasticlly shagging, partying and necking class As inbetween the odd bit of activism - and  all the while getting _paid_ for it.
> 
> ...


 
it's shocking... I still can't believe this story. how did the people who decided this would be an okay idea ever reach the decision that this was an okay idea. it's insane


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 10, 2011)

i just read about this, fascinating stuff.  bloke must be proper mixed up.

always assume there's a copper present.  we know from experience and hindsight that they are everywhere on the activism scene.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> grounds for appeal for the 20 convicted, i'd have thought.


 
That's what I thought when I first heard about it... but:



> They *admitted* planning to shut down the power station but denied the charge they faced, using a defence of "necessity".
> 
> Guardian report of verdict (my emphasis)



The judge clearly thought that defence had more more weight than the jury gave it:




			
				judge Jonathan Teare  said:
			
		

> [the public may consider this sentencing] "impossibly lenient"...
> 
> You are all decent men and women with a genuine concern for others, and in particular for the survival of planet Earth in something resembling its present form...
> 
> ...


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2011)

tastebud said:


> it's shocking... I still can't believe this story. how did the people who decided this would be an okay idea ever reach the decision that this was an okay idea. it's insane


 
What is shocking is that people assume this is an isolated case. The state have loads of police infiltrating groups up and down the country.


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2011)

Big piece in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-cop-activist



> Six of Kennedy's close friends confronted him in a house in Nottingham in the early hours of 21 October last year. He confessed, breaking down in tears and expressing regret for the pain he had caused. He told those present that he was not the only officer deep undercover in the protest movement, costing the taxpayer £250,000 a year per agent.


----------



## elbows (Jan 10, 2011)

There was a documentary some years back that included stuff about the special branch infiltrating in order to 'prevent subversion' featuring a couple of interviews with fairly extreme cops who did not try to hide their contempt for the lefties they were spying on. The documentary was trying to suggest that the police etc had closed down their anti-subversion units in more recent times as it wasnt needed anymore, this stuff was al in the past, but such conclusions lacked credibility in my eyes. Its possible they rebranded and dont use the term subversion as much these days, but its pretty obvious that the state is still going to take an interest in these things.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2011)

*What is the National Public Order Intelligence Unit?* Telegraph - cuttings job but interesting they feel the need to keep the story going...


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

el-ahrairah said:


> i just read about this, fascinating stuff.  bloke must be proper mixed up.
> 
> always assume there's a copper present.  we know from experience and hindsight that they are everywhere on the activism scene.



Yep - especially anything to do with direct action; the important thing is to be reasonably cool about it imo, wandering around constantly paranoid about all your friends or colleagues is worse than being naive and assuming everything's ok. Anyone involved in DA should assume that they will be busted anyway at some point and should assume that much of what they are up to will be monitored.

If I was involved in this kind of surveillance (ie that which crosses the line to agent provocateur status) I would think the biggest and easiest win would be to spread distrust and discord within groups.


----------



## shaman75 (Jan 10, 2011)

editor said:


> Big piece in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-cop-activist





> Kennedy, who had travelled from the London G20 protests.



Wonder if he broke any windows while he was there...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2011)

I think it's worth reiterating that it would be easy to check someone's background if in doubt.

e.g. a visit to their home town to meet their old school mates and family would be in order.


----------



## tastebud (Jan 10, 2011)

TopCat said:


> What is shocking is that people assume this is an isolated case. The state have loads of police infiltrating groups up and down the country.


 
this case seemed verging on pointless though, in terms of the use of having him as a tout for so long. 250k for such a case seems a little ott to me.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 10, 2011)

Its just like that film 'I.D'.

But without Gumbo. 

'I fucking love you Gumbo'.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2011)

tastebud said:


> 250k for such a case seems a little ott to me.



Er... 12 August 2003 (EF! Yorkshire) to, say, August 2010 = 7 years; at his quoted price = £1,750,000


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 10, 2011)

Not a popular viewpoint, but i have a degree of sympathy for him. His reaction to what happened showed imo that he'd rather have not been in the police in the first place. A far more hardnosed agent would have just fucked off and not even bothered about the consequences. I hope those who were betrayed by him can find space for forgiveness.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 10, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> He's quit the cops now.


 
The police will neither confirm nor deny that this is the case, all we have is his word for it (that is not enough).


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> grounds for appeal for the 20 convicted, i'd have thought.


 
Maybe, certainly worth pursuing.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Not a popular viewpoint, but i have a degree of sympathy for him. His reaction to what happened showed imo that he'd rather have not been in the police in the first place. A far more hardnosed agent would have just fucked off and not even bothered about the consequences. I hope those who were betrayed by him can find space for forgiveness.


 
That's a warm view. 

Sadly, I think it's more of a case that he's shiteing himself at the repercussions from certain quarters.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 10, 2011)

Garek said:


> The bottle and Beachy Head?


 
It's all he deserves, and would send a helpful message to others.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> The police will neither confirm nor deny that this is the case, all we have is his word for it (that is not enough).


 
Indeed.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 10, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> That's a warm view.
> 
> Sadly, I think it's more of a case that he's shiteing himself at the repercussions from certain quarters.


 
Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that. What he did was the shits, but wallowing in hatred for him isnt the answer. he owned up to people that he was undercover, that alone says he had some bollocks left.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 10, 2011)

Up to 1 in 3 of various undergound / seditious / blah groups are not what you think they are - not a figure plucked out of the air, but from the horses mouth IYKWIM


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 10, 2011)

Admitting a crime doesn't change the impact it has on the victims.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Admitting a crime doesn't change the impact it has on the victims.


 
He needs a proper de briefing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 10, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> Up to 1 in 3 of various undergound / seditious / blah groups are not what you think they are - not a figure plucked out of the air, but from the horses mouth IYKWIM


 
The main man behind the long running series of multi-rigger raves known as moots thought I was Mi5 for years 

We're good mates now, but one day I'll nick the bastard.


----------



## ymu (Jan 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> grounds for appeal for the 20 convicted, i'd have thought.


Unlikely.

Firstly, they got very lenient sentences, so they'd be foolish to risk getting a less sympathetic judge on appeal.

Secondly, they'd have to argue that they were duped into taking action and never would have done it without entrapment from the police, which implicitly acknowledges that the action was 'wrong'. Not only is this at odds with their original defence, I doubt any self-respecting activist would want to use this line.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 10, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The main man behind the long running series of multi-rigger raves known as moots thought I was Mi5 for years
> 
> We're good mates now, but one day I'll nick the bastard.


 

then the druids will ave ya!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2011)

ymu said:


> Unlikely.
> 
> Firstly, they got very lenient sentences, so they'd be foolish to risk getting a less sympathetic judge on appeal.
> 
> Secondly, they'd have to argue that they were duped into taking action and never would have done it without entrapment from the police, which implicitly acknowledges that the action was 'wrong'. Not only is this at odds with their original defence, I doubt any self-respecting activist would want to use this line.


 
I would have thought that any sign of plod entrapment would be grounds to get a conviction thrown out tbh. It fucking well should be. Given the met's unwillingness to part their lips on this matter I'd certainly be tempted to appeal if only to force some more embarassing information out into the open. The Stone/Kennedy saga was nowhere near the national press before the Ratcliffe trial so there's obvioulsy attention to be gained, and the prosecution can't drop an appeal by the defendants now can they?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 10, 2011)

ddraig said:


> then the druids will ave ya!


 
Gonna wait until dem kaos druids are busy casting some weather spells and sneak in and get the old boy locked up. 

Either that or have a toot on his pipe


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that. What he did was the shits, but wallowing in hatred for him isnt the answer. he owned up to people that he was undercover, that alone says he had some bollocks left.


 
He owned up once he'd been comprehensively busted tbf. The police are seldom moved when a 'criminal' shows remorse only after he's been found out, hard to see why we should treat this cunt any differently.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 10, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that. What he did was the shits, but wallowing in hatred for him isnt the answer. he owned up to people that he was undercover, that alone says he had some bollocks left.


Rubbish, he was outed and then he came clean. Now he's shitting himself. Boofuckinghoo. There'll be people doing time because of his activities.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 10, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Rubbish, he was outed and then he came clean. Now he's shitting himself. Boofuckinghoo. There'll be people doing time because of his activities.


 
I think you are right.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 10, 2011)

Apparently his genuine passport was found and documents confirming he was an officer. When he was confronted by that evidence, he admitted. He was thirty years old when he went undercover. 

It's not like he went undercover really young and/or naive and confessed to friends when his conscience couldn't take it. He had two long -term girlfriends and a wife and kids in his real life - wonder how they're all feeling now. It would make me sick to the pit of my stomach if I thought I'd been in a relationship with a police infiltrator. 

Saying that, if he's out the country, watching his step and guilty for life, that's enough for me. I'm a harmless oaf _(Met Police code for dangerous domestic extremist)_ Mind you, I'm sure those who ended up with sentences because of him may feel differently.....


----------



## winjer (Jan 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> grounds for appeal for the 20 convicted, i'd have thought.


Pleading guilty suggests a little local difficulty.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2011)

So, how much money do we think he's trousered? Enough to retire on?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> Apparently his genuine passport was found and documents confirming he was an officer. When he was confronted by that evidence, he admitted. He was thirty years old when he went undercover.


 
This is a version of the story that seems to have come out with the recent mainstream press articles. They make no mention of suspicions that a number of people developed over time for a number of reasons. Some articles seem to suggest he owned up voluntarily rather than being found. It's interesting to see how a story you've seen play out in real life gets twisted once the press get hold of it. Could be nothing, could be a deliberate attempt to play down the wherewithal of the infiltratees in this matter, who knows?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> So, how much money do we think he's trousered? Enough to retire on?


 
Well I doubt he'll get much of a reference from either the plod or the activists he stitched up, so for his sake I hope he doesn't need to work again.


----------



## flickerx (Jan 10, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> The police are seldom moved when a 'criminal' shows remorse only after he's been found out, hard to see why we should treat this cunt any differently.



Because - the police are the ones who are enforcing the shitty world that people live in and the dominant powers. The people, the activists, the ones who are campaigning for a better world to live in, they're trying to set themselves apart from the bullshit and misery that has the planet so fucked in the first place. Right?

So yes, the guy was a cop. Yes he doubtlessly informed on many an action and an activist. Yes, could have easily followed through with the power station bullshit charge; but decided he couldnt go through with it. Something in there showed some humanity. 

Now the cops probably wont have him any more either.

Is the activist scene ready to bring him back in, listen to what he has to say, go through a long period of restorative justice, meeting and listening to all the people who felt betrayed, with talking it out and creating a better world - or are they just going to call him "scum" (language of the tabloid media IMHO) and tell him, mob vigilante justice style, he's cruising for a bruising if he shows up in eng-ger-land again?

It is worth a try to reach out to him. He may have lots to teach and tell about what the cops do undercover. Very little chances for the activists to ever know what happens in darkened offices of Whitehall and Scotland Yard.

Or are activists just happy to ape/mirror the ostracisation that happens in society today?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 10, 2011)

There is that.

Or it's a double bluff.


----------



## pk (Jan 10, 2011)

It's entrapment if the undercover admits to setting everything up, surely?


----------



## ymu (Jan 10, 2011)

ymu said:


> Unlikely.
> 
> Firstly, they got very lenient sentences, so they'd be foolish to risk getting a less sympathetic judge on appeal.
> 
> Secondly, they'd have to argue that they were duped into taking action and never would have done it without entrapment from the police, which implicitly acknowledges that the action was 'wrong'. Not only is this at odds with their original defence, I doubt any self-respecting activist would want to use this line.


 
Scratch that. Newsnight interviewee claiming that the action was nearly called off when they saw some coppers hanging around outside the power station, and Mark Stone/Kennedy went to have a look and declared it clear and made some effort to persuade them to continue.

There could be grounds for appeal there.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2011)

flickerx said:


> Because - the police are the ones who are enforcing the shitty world that people live in and the dominant powers. The people, the activists, the ones who are campaigning for a better world to live in, they're trying to set themselves apart from the bullshit and misery that has the planet so fucked in the first place. Right?
> 
> So yes, the guy was a cop. Yes he doubtlessly informed on many an action and an activist. Yes, could have easily followed through with the power station bullshit charge; but decided he couldnt go through with it. Something in there showed some humanity.
> 
> ...



Batter the cunt!


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 10, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is a version of the story that seems to have come out with the recent mainstream press articles. They make no mention of suspicions that a number of people developed over time for a number of reasons. Some articles seem to suggest he owned up voluntarily rather than being found. It's interesting to see how a story you've seen play out in real life gets twisted once the press get hold of it. Could be nothing, could be a deliberate attempt to play down the wherewithal of the infiltratees in this matter, who knows?



You may know much more about this than me - and I know better than to take anything I read anywhere as definite fact, but this does match up with stuff I'd seen on indymedia etc. in which it seemed that people had had suspicions and then found out evidence which confirmed them. Understandably at the time people were wary to disclose how and why they'd discovered what had happened for obvious good reason. Particularly if the stuff about him confirming that someone else was undercover too is correct (could be disinformation to tip the balance over into outright distrust at a time of likely increased action I suppose).


----------



## paolo (Jan 10, 2011)

So who was the woman? If the account (see below) is true, then she's known to some people.

"Mark Kennedy knew of second undercover eco-activist"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-second-undercover-ecoactivist



> PC Mark Kennedy is understood to have confirmed the woman was a fellow police officer two months ago, when being confronted by friends over his true identity.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2011)

I never read online comments on news sites (unless paid so to do), but I made an exception:



> Well, if it means part of the government was doing their best to stop global warming, I'm glad the police did this.


----------



## paolo (Jan 10, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is a version of the story that seems to have come out with the recent mainstream press articles. They make no mention of suspicions that a number of people developed over time



The Guardian mentions it - they're leading the story.



> But by Climate Camp 2008 – when activists gathered near Kingsnorth power station, in Kent – the undercover police officer's appetite for action was raising suspicions. Kennedy volunteered to be the driver in an action that saw 29 activists successfully hijack a train delivering 1,000 tonnes of coal to Drax. Behind his back, some protesters began calling him "Detective Stone".



The other papers were probably lazy when they cribbed their homework.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

More tonight, much much more:

MP in Germany says Mark Kennedy 'trespassed' in Berlin activists' lives



> The row over the unmasking of undercover police officer Mark Kennedy reached Europe today as a German politician demanded the Bundestag parliament reveal what the authorities knew about Kennedy's infiltration of Berlin's protest movement.
> 
> Andrej Hunko, an MP for the leftwing Linke party, issued a press release saying Kennedy had been "active" in Germany as well as the UK and had "trespassed" in the private lives of activists.
> 
> The Guardian understands Kennedy spent long periods in Germany, and lived with individuals in the "black block" anarchist movement. He also travelled extensively elsewhere in Europe, using a fake passport to enter 22 different countries.


----------



## paolo (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More tonight, much much more:
> 
> MP in Germany says Mark Kennedy 'trespassed' in Berlin activists' lives


 
Was just reading that. Very interesting.

Wonder if he was given any remit from his bosses to be doing that? If not, I wonder what his motivation was.


----------



## flickerx (Jan 10, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Batter the cunt!



Fine so, just dont whinge when the cops batter people, if you cant lead by example.


----------



## OneStrike (Jan 10, 2011)

If he was playing the game in 22 countries I'd imagine there are a number of foreign offices quite keen to know what our authorities had been sanctioning and what little information 'we' had been sharing.  He might have life difficult right now, i am surprised at some of the sympathy he is getting though, he was a grown man when he started so tough shit, he doesn't deserve a second thought of mine, fuck him.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jan 10, 2011)

From Newsnight this evening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9354287.stm

Whole program will be on iplayer soon


----------



## Teepee (Jan 11, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> From Newsnight this evening
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9354287.stm
> 
> Whole program will be on iplayer soon


 
happy 10k!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 11, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> The other papers were probably lazy when they cribbed their homework.


 
Reckon you're probably right there.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 11, 2011)

A tout is scum.. he is probably preying on other innocents..
btw: Since he was married.. then had affairs to keep his cover.. shouldnt he be facing Assange style prosecution?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2011)

flickerx said:


> Fine so, just dont whinge when the cops batter people, if you cant lead by example.


 
If you treat the cops nice they will be nice back


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 11, 2011)

If Kennedy was working under deep cover it was deeper than has been revealed up to now. It seems that he was working in other countries including Germany. He wouldn't be doing this for the Met Police as he claims. It would have to be the Security Services namely MI6. While the police have connections with MI5, they don't as far as I know do work for MI6.

 I conclude that Kennedy has admitted to one layer of cover, having been found out, but the whole truth is not evident yet. He may have been getting a policeman's salary but they were not his main employer I suspect. The states of all countries are working together in a bit of a disorganised panic about what they call terrorism, but they haven't learned or don't want to see the difference between suicide bombers and climate camp protesters. This is the state forced into a corner and fighting like a rat.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jan 11, 2011)

Teepee said:


> happy 10k!



Oooooooo I hadn't noticed. Thanks


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> A tout is scum.. he is probably preying on other innocents..
> btw: Since he was married.. then had affairs to keep his cover.. shouldnt he be facing Assange style prosecution?


 
Unlikely in the UK, but maybe in Germany? Seems to have had relationships there and more likely to a/ have that kind of crime on the books and b/ legal system less likely to protect Met officers. No chance here, there's no pressure on the Met to even comment!


----------



## paolo (Jan 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> A tout is scum.. he is probably preying on other innocents..
> btw: Since he was married.. then had affairs to keep his cover.. shouldnt he be facing Assange style prosecution?


 
Not following you. Prosecuted for what?


----------



## yield (Jan 11, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Not following you. Prosecuted for what?


 
Persecution?


----------



## pk (Jan 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Since he was married.. then had affairs to keep his cover.. shouldnt he be facing Assange style prosecution?


 
It's effectively rape... yup, what a sick bastard. No pity for him whatoever.

His fate will be to spend what remains of his life in mental turmoil.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 11, 2011)

the Newsnight programme had that creep Ken McDonald on, repeating inanely "questions need to be asked".  One I'd ask McDonald is why, when defendants in the GANDALF trial wanted to call Tim Hepple as a witness on the same grounds as successfully done with Kennedy, he refused, saying "I'd be struck off".  Still, McDonald got his reward (DPP).

As for Kennedy, what we need from him to be taken seriously is full disclosure--names, dates of his bosses in various agencies, specific operations (including Antifa) & chapter and verse on spying in Germany/elsewhere.  Unless/until he does that, he should be trated with great circumspection.  He hints at other infiltrators--give us the names.

If, and only if, Kennedy provides full & corroborated disclosure,  then those he wronged can form a view as to his readmission to proper human society.  My current intuition is that Kennedy is playing out some complicated inter-agency end game.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 11, 2011)

Spot on Larry.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 11, 2011)

He's not a tout he's on the other side. although seems a lot of effort to stop people closing a power station and er appearing on protests which they did'nt stop.
 I guess someobody took the more hysterical posts out there seriously and once you have an agent in place you want to justify it. because its expensive and severly career limiting to admit you've put a covert officer and its pointless once he was in place they'd justify his intelligence.
  doubt he was working for SIS


----------



## winjer (Jan 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More tonight, much much more:
> 
> MP in Germany says Mark Kennedy 'trespassed' in Berlin activists' lives


Wonder if he wrote this report: http://bit.ly/beo3fX


----------



## Garek (Jan 11, 2011)

So what is the legallity regarding fake passports? I mean it is one thing the government authoring it for use on soveriegn territory, but how does it play out when going to other countries? There was be some kind of legal framework in place.



> If, and only if, Kennedy provides full & corroborated disclosure, then those he wronged can form a view as to his readmission to proper human society. My current intuition is that Kennedy is playing out some complicated inter-agency end game


 Larry O'Hara

I agree. He had to reveal stuff when the shit hit the fan, but there will still be quite a few cards up his sleeves. I mean this is someone who has spent 7 years lying. Must be kinda used to it by now


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2011)

winjer said:


> Wonder if he wrote this report: http://bit.ly/beo3fX


 
The redaction fairies had fun with that!


----------



## winjer (Jan 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Scratch that. Newsnight interviewee claiming that the action was nearly called off when they saw some coppers hanging around outside the power station, and Mark Stone/Kennedy went to have a look and declared it clear and made some effort to persuade them to continue.


Oh, it's entrapment because he may have made them think they could go ahead with the plan?

I can't wait for 'Serpico 2: But He Had A Beard!'


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 11, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If Kennedy was working under deep cover it was deeper than has been revealed up to now. It seems that he was working in other countries including Germany. He wouldn't be doing this for the Met Police as he claims. It would have to be the Security Services namely MI6. While the police have connections with MI5, they don't as far as I know do work for MI6.
> 
> I conclude that Kennedy has admitted to one layer of cover, having been found out, but the whole truth is not evident yet. He may have been getting a policeman's salary but they were not his main employer I suspect. The states of all countries are working together in a bit of a disorganised panic about what they call terrorism, but they haven't learned or don't want to see the difference between suicide bombers and climate camp protesters. This is the state forced into a corner and fighting like a rat.


 
Yes, this is certainly possible.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 11, 2011)

Larry O'Hara said:


> the Newsnight programme had that creep Ken McDonald on, repeating inanely "questions need to be asked".  One I'd ask McDonald is why, when defendants in the GANDALF trial wanted to call Tim Hepple as a witness on the same grounds as successfully done with Kennedy, he refused, saying "I'd be struck off".  Still, McDonald got his reward (DPP).
> 
> As for Kennedy, what we need from him to be taken seriously is full disclosure--names, dates of his bosses in various agencies, specific operations (including Antifa) & chapter and verse on spying in Germany/elsewhere.  Unless/until he does that, he should be trated with great circumspection.  He hints at other infiltrators--give us the names.
> 
> If, and only if, Kennedy provides full & corroborated disclosure,  then those he wronged can form a view as to his readmission to proper human society.  My current intuition is that Kennedy is playing out some complicated inter-agency end game.


 
GOod observation Larry.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 11, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Yes, this is certainly possible.


 
It would also explain why such a long term and costly operation was carried out to monitor people who were very low threat.


----------



## winjer (Jan 11, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> The redaction fairies had fun with that!


Luckily it was released in Another Country, here'd you'd get fobbed off with an NCND at best.


----------



## Random (Jan 11, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is a version of the story that seems to have come out with the recent mainstream press articles. They make no mention of suspicions that a number of people developed over time for a number of reasons. Some articles seem to suggest he owned up voluntarily rather than being found. It's interesting to see how a story you've seen play out in real life gets twisted once the press get hold of it. Could be nothing, could be a deliberate attempt to play down the wherewithal of the infiltratees in this matter, who knows?


 No, his passport was found, this is what actually happened.


----------



## laptop (Jan 11, 2011)

Random said:


> No, his passport was found, this is what actually happened.


 
The _Guardian_ reports assume that activists are among the readership; and they noted that some activists had their suspicions beforehand.

Other papers boiled the story down to the dramatic moment when the passport was found.


----------



## pk (Jan 11, 2011)

Random said:


> No, his passport was found, this is what actually happened.


 
I doubt he would have owned up and wept openly to his hirsute friends in the climate camp had his documents not been discovered ...

"it was a chance discovery of his real passport, bearing the surname Kennedy, months later that put activists on a trail that would eventually lead them to documents confirming he was a police officer.

Six of Kennedy's close friends confronted him in a house in Nottingham in the early hours of 21 October last year. He confessed, breaking down in tears and expressing regret for the pain he had caused."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-cop-activist


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 11, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> It would also explain why such a long term and costly operation was carried out to monitor people who were very low threat.


 
Also, it maybe the case that he needed to embed in the UK to gain access to 'hard to infiltrate' places in Europe? Sniffing around Italy makes me really think these maybe the real goals...


----------



## elbows (Jan 11, 2011)

The BBC coverage last night was highly amusing.

The ex-undercover cop on Newsnight mentioning the private security companies that infiltrate protest movements in this day and age was also funny to hear about on the telly.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 11, 2011)

Larry O'Hara said:


> the Newsnight programme had that creep Ken McDonald on, repeating inanely "questions need to be asked".  One I'd ask McDonald is why, when defendants in the GANDALF trial wanted to call Tim Hepple as a witness on the same grounds as successfully done with Kennedy, he refused, saying "I'd be struck off".  Still, McDonald got his reward (DPP).
> 
> As for Kennedy, what we need from him to be taken seriously is full disclosure--names, dates of his bosses in various agencies, specific operations (including Antifa) & chapter and verse on spying in Germany/elsewhere.  Unless/until he does that, he should be trated with great circumspection.  He hints at other infiltrators--give us the names.
> 
> If, and only if, Kennedy provides full & corroborated disclosure,  then those he wronged can form a view as to his readmission to proper human society.  My current intuition is that Kennedy is playing out some complicated inter-agency end game.


 
Trouble is nobody could trust anything he said. Imagine he gives the names of, say, half a dozen 'undercover officers'; these could be any random people he's met on his travels and knows to be well trusted and well connected. With that single act he could destroy protest groups and even more people's lives.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 11, 2011)

elbows said:


> The BBC coverage last night was highly amusing.
> 
> The ex-undercover cop on Newsnight mentioning the private security companies that infiltrate protest movements in this day and age was also funny to hear about on the telly.


 
I've run into undercover private sector goons before. They're hilariously easy to spot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2011)

like thatcher, kennedy's not for turning. he went to work for a firm run by former special branch after leaving the met, ffs.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> The _Guardian_ reports assume that activists are among the readership; and they noted that some activists had their suspicions beforehand.
> 
> Other papers boiled the story down to the dramatic moment when the passport was found.


 
From what I heard the passport raised suspicions among his freinds - they did some digging and got hold of his marrige certificate which had his job listed as 'police officer' - so he was bang to rights rather then coughing up due to a guilty conscience. He offered to name names of other undercover cops and stool pigeons - but he was (rightly) turned down as they felt he was just to continue to fuck them around. 

Interesting question as to weather he was MI5 or not ...

IMO it doesn't pay to get too  tied up in knots over undercover plod. We know they are there and may well attempt to stir shit within an organisations - but most political activism is public. Direct Action of the type carried out by earth frist et al is gerenally about carring out  symbolic actions to publicise an issue rather then to have an actual effect on the state or big busines. The state feels fit to spend millions infiltrating such groups - but they have very little effect on their activism other than casuing the occasional action to be thwarted - they cant stop thousands turning up to protest, or blocade or picket.  

The worst thing about this case is not just that people have been convictied of the back of his actions - its also the emotional trauma he has inflicted on those he was closest too. Imagine finding out that your lover of several years was leading a double life all the time - not just secretly married, but faked his entire realtionship with you in order to snitch on you and your friends  to the cops? That sort of shit could break people. 

If it was me I'd be looking for hefty compensation from the police (or whoever ...)


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2011)

Undercover cops becoming lovers of activists is nothing new. I can't name a person who I know this happened to but for sure it affected her and still does. 

As for undercover cops generally, never trust a man with a van!


----------



## winjer (Jan 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> like thatcher, kennedy's not for turning. he went to work for a firm run by former special branch after leaving the met, ffs.


But which one?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> . he went to work for a firm run by former special branch after leaving the met, ffs.



Tell us more...


----------



## rioted (Jan 11, 2011)

pk said:


> "it was a chance discovery..."


Gullible fool.

And to describe the key characters as "hirsute" shows both total ignorance and pathetic bigotry.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 11, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Trouble is nobody could trust anything he said. Imagine he gives the names of, say, half a dozen 'undercover officers'; these could be any random people he's met on his travels and knows to be well trusted and well connected. With that single act he could destroy protest groups and even more people's lives.



I totally agree: hence my use of the word corroborated.  His word, alone, is as worthwhile as (say) David Shayler/Annie Machon's--zero credibility, unless verified.  That he now seems to be working for another outfit underlines that.


----------



## pk (Jan 11, 2011)

rioted said:


> Gullible fool.
> 
> And to describe the key characters as "hirsute" shows both total ignorance and pathetic bigotry.


 
Fuck you, bigotry LOL!

Look at the bug eyed cunt.

And don't call me gullible - I wasn't the one being driven around by a copper for ten years!

He must have been good on the stake-outs at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, though - one eye on the pot smokers and the other up the chimney!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> As for undercover cops generally, never trust a man with a van!



*slaps TopCat around back of head*


----------



## mincepie (Jan 11, 2011)

Fascinating story. When is the film out??? 

I can't help but feel a bit sad for him now. As others have said...things are going to be a bit difficult from now on.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> From what I heard the passport raised suspicions among his freinds - they did some digging and got hold of his marrige certificate which had his job listed as 'police officer' - so he was bang to rights rather then coughing up due to a guilty conscience. He offered to name names of other undercover cops and stool pigeons - but he was (rightly) turned down as they felt he was just to continue to fuck them around.
> 
> Interesting question as to weather he was MI5 or not ...
> 
> ...



This post alone has given me far more insights into this story than anything else I've managed to read so far, and I've only been able to catch up with limited bits of this thread. I know there'll be many other informative posts when I get time.

Ta for that KT, will play proper catch up ASAP. Fascinating stuff.


----------



## flickerx (Jan 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Look at the bug eyed cunt.
> 
> He must have been good on the stake-outs at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, though - one eye on the pot smokers and the other up the chimney!


 
Moron.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> As for undercover cops generally, never trust a man with a van!


 
I had a luton van. Thames Valley Police stole it as evidence and when ordered to return it it was so fucked that it was unroadworthy. Should I shoot myself or sue TVP?


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 11, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Tell us more...


 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...mark-kennedy-exposed-after-he-quit-the-met.do



> An undercover policeman who infiltrated eco-activists was exposed after he resigned from the force and began working for a private security firm, it emerged today.
> 
> Mark Kennedy had left the Met seven months earlier and joined a company run by former Special Branch detectives.
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Jan 11, 2011)

He must have earnt an absolute fortune.


----------



## mincepie (Jan 11, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...mark-kennedy-exposed-after-he-quit-the-met.do





> An undercover policeman who infiltrated eco-activists was *exposed after he resigned from the force and began working for a private security firm*, it emerged today.
> 
> Mark Kennedy had *left the Met seven months earlier and joined a company* run by former Special Branch detectives.
> 
> ...



Is this right??? That's in the reverse order of what all the other papers where saying??


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 11, 2011)

Tricked, betrayed, violated: did police spy use sex to win activists' trust?


> Woman questions motives of PC Mark Kennedy's relationships while he spent seven years undercover in the protest community
> 
> Tonight, a woman came forward to add to accusations that Kennedy in his undercover role had sexual relationships with women in the protest movement. Her allegations raise important questions for his senior police handlers about his conduct while operating undercover.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garek (Jan 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Look at the bug eyed cunt.


 
On the thead about the kid sent down for 32 months you described him as a 'fat fuck'. On this thread you describe this man as 'bug eyed'.

Are you incapable of slating someone without resoriting to petty, childish appearance attacks? It makes me doubt wether you actually have any valid opinions, or wether you are just one of those saddos who likes to spunk what they think is testrone over the interent.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2011)

Garek said:


> On the thead about the kid sent down for 32 months you described him as a 'fat fuck'. On this thread you describe this man as 'bug eyed'.
> 
> Are you incapable of slating someone without resoriting to petty, childish appearance attacks? It makes me doubt wether you actually have any valid opinions, or wether you are just one of those saddos who likes to spunk what they think is testrone over the interent.


 
Do you really know who you are messing with here?


----------



## Garek (Jan 11, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Do you really know who you are messing with here?


 
No, I have no idea. I am just slightly confused as to the way someone can ignore possible valid arguments for petty, playground insults.


----------



## Garek (Jan 11, 2011)

Soory, not ignore, choose over would have been more apt a phrase.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Do you really know who you are messing with here?


 
what, big scary pk? oh noe!!!


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2011)

Garek said:


> No, I have no idea. I am just slightly confused as to the way someone can ignore possible valid arguments for petty, playground insults.


 
Some would say that you are heading to dangerous waters. Do a bit of research.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 11, 2011)

A thought on the MI5/6 ideas being kicked around here. This guy started off in 2003, back then those two had a pretty full plate with Iraq, Afghanistan and the early post 9/11 world. A more plausible story would be a normal police operation was developing leads abroad that the Met were allowed to pursue as they had the resource and budget available while the traditional intelligence services had people trying to gain access to Badr Brigade and al Queda, eco hippies may not have featured on their priorities. This looks far more like an operation that lost focus, became too ambitious and ended burning out the copper ('operative' is just making him sound cool). He was too deep, too long on the wrong type of target for the handling skills of the Met used to short inserts. Look at the policing of a big demo like Climate Camp Heathrow, Kingsnorth or that. They are multi million pound events, plus he was getting info on lots of small demos as well. His entire annual budget could be repaid once a year by heading off a small banner drop and occupation of a power station. The Ratcliffe protest that was busted down would have cost Notts fucktoons of dosh. Plus if he was getting good info on European groups the Met and ACPO probably felt like Billy Big Bollox, all John le Carre and shit doing foreign intel without the experience of how to ensure you don’t end up with the German parliament asking questions about who you were shagging. 

Id vote for a Met clusterfuck rather than MI6 cover up. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## paolo (Jan 12, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Id vote for a Met clusterfuck rather than MI6 cover up.



Aye.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

The movie........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...-to-story-of-climate-group-undercover-Pc.html


----------



## winjer (Jan 12, 2011)

mincepie said:


> Is this right??? That's in the reverse order of what all the other papers where saying??


I'm not sure it is in reverse, or just more specific. I don't think any of the other coverage claims proof was found that he was currently a police officer, just evidence that he had listed it as his occupation at one (or more) time.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

So this guy was feeding the information to the police and companies about how serious the protests were, possibly influencing those protests (almost certainly) and now works to earn money from companies affected by these protests.

How many others of those who have been in a position to influence police priorities in terms of protests have subsequently financially benefitted from companies affected by those protests?

On the 7th of July 2005 people known to the police committed atrocity bombing, the police did not have the resources to investigate those involved. Did having half an eye on post police income influence the decisions that allowed those perpetrators to slip the net?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 12, 2011)

Good point ferrelhadley


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

If he hasn’t had a “change of heart” then did he deliberately collapse a trail to maintain a personal income stream?

E2A

Notts police service may take an interest in this, can anyone advise if this would allow a re-opening of the case against the protesters;  certainly criminal charges against Kennedy are possible if this is true, but its not worth the candle if the protesters get done.


----------



## winjer (Jan 12, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> On the 7th of July 2005 people known to the police committed atrocity bombing, the police did not have the resources to investigate those involved. Did having half an eye on post police income influence the decisions that allowed those perpetrators to slip the net?


Is the Counter-Terror industry worth more than the Counter-Protest industry?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2011)

flickerx said:


> Because - the police are the ones who are enforcing the shitty world that people live in and the dominant powers. The people, the activists, the ones who are campaigning for a better world to live in, they're trying to set themselves apart from the bullshit and misery that has the planet so fucked in the first place. Right?
> 
> So yes, the guy was a cop. Yes he doubtlessly informed on many an action and an activist. Yes, could have easily followed through with the power station bullshit charge; but decided he couldnt go through with it. Something in there showed some humanity.


 
It could be interpreted that way. But it could just as easily be cowardice now that he's been exposed.


----------



## rekil (Jan 12, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> The movie........
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...-to-story-of-climate-group-undercover-Pc.html


  Who Dares Wins without the guns or Lewis Collins. Who'd want to see that.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 12, 2011)

copliker said:


> Who Dares Wins without the guns or Lewis Collins. Who'd want to see that.



Christ- you shudder to think what they will do to sex it up. Evil foriegn anarchists using  cuddly brit hippies as part of their plan to spread chaos and destruciton with flawed, compromised hero pc stone/kennedy (clive owen) caught in the middle. He is then exposed but uses his climbing skills to escape certain death from the baddies - followed by motor bikes vs PC Stone's van car chase with fireballs. But then he has  to rescue his (well meaning but misguided) hippy girl friend (angelina jolie)  from the black bloc (led by a totally OTT gary oldham doing evil foriegner)  thus earning her forgivenss for being a cop and together they stop the black bloc blowing up a nuclear reactor. Roll credits. 

Or something like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> The police will neither confirm nor deny that this is the case, all we have is his word for it (that is not enough).


 
yes. and the reports that he quit the police in march last year.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2011)

the media love this story cos it has lots of drama, salaciousness and sex, etc in it, but what it shows to me, is just how the activist culture has a shameful attitude towards its younger female participants  , young students sleeping around with much older activists who know exactly what they are doing, of course they have agency but the women often regret it in later life, the men are still doing it, seen it all happen..

Earth First was very much like this, in many ways a cult with its high priests, mentioning no names...


----------



## paolo (Jan 12, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ- you shudder to think what they will do to sex it up. Evil foriegn anarchists using  cuddly brit hippies as part of their plan to spread chaos and destruciton with flawed, compromised hero pc stone/kennedy (clive owen) caught in the middle. He is then exposed but uses his climbing skills to escape certain death from the baddies - followed by motor bikes vs PC Stone's van car chase with fireballs. But then he has  to rescue his (well meaning but misguided) hippy girl friend (angelina jolie)  from the black bloc (led by a totally OTT gary oldham doing evil foriegner)  thus earning her forgivenss for being a cop and together they stop the black bloc blowing up a nuclear reactor. Roll credits.
> 
> Or something like that.


 
That's pretty good. Get pitching!


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2011)

there will definitely be a TV drama, not sure about film...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> the media love this story cos it has lots of drama, salaciousness and sex, etc in it, but what it shows to me, is just how the activist culture has a shameful attitude towards its younger female participants  , young students sleeping around with much older activists who know exactly what they are doing, of course they have agency but the women often regret it in later life, the men are still doing it, seen it all happen..
> 
> Earth First was very much like this, in many ways a cult with its high priests, mentioning no names...



Aren't you being a little bit sexist here by painting the women as somehow gullible and the men as predators?


----------



## pk (Jan 12, 2011)

Garek said:


> On the thead about the kid sent down for 32 months you described him as a 'fat fuck'. On this thread you describe this man as 'bug eyed'.
> 
> Are you incapable of slating someone without resoriting to petty, childish appearance attacks? It makes me doubt wether you actually have any valid opinions, or wether you are just one of those saddos who likes to spunk what they think is testrone over the interent.


 
Oh noes! Do I hurted the ickle undercover cops feeeeelings? Fucking LOL


----------



## zog (Jan 12, 2011)

Careful, hes an internet hard man.


----------



## girasol (Jan 12, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Some would say that you are heading to dangerous waters. Do a bit of research.


 
What are you on about???  And yes it does seem a bit childish to keep picking on insignificant points, I don't think the direction his eyes take have anything to do with his morals.  I hope this man Mark Stone gets very little sleep, what a shitty job/thing to do.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2011)

@citizen, not at all, they have agency and know what they are doing, but these men are serial predators, they move on when the young women move out of the movement(as most do) to the next intake...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> @citizen, not at all, they have agency and know what they are doing, but these men are serial predators, they move on when the young women move out of the movement(as most do) to the next intake...



People shag each other shocker.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> @citizen, not at all, they have agency and know what they are doing, but these men are serial predators, they move on when the young women move out of the movement(as most do) to the next intake...


 
Hippy and neo-hippy scenes are often patriarchal and exploitative.


----------



## past caring (Jan 12, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Do you really know who you are messing with here?





The39thStep said:


> Some would say that you are heading to dangerous waters. Do a bit of research.



Oh well, you did your best mate - they can't say they weren't warned.


----------



## strung out (Jan 12, 2011)




----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Hippy and neo-hippy scenes are often patriarchal and exploitative.


 
As are many other areas of life the world over. What i'm objecting to is the idea that because there's an age gap between the men and the women and the men haven't settled down like society expects of them then it MUST be an exploitative relationship. It's riddled with assumptions and prejudices. Anyway, enough of that particular derail.


----------



## rioted (Jan 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Hippy and neo-hippy scenes are often patriarchal and exploitative.


And often not. 



past caring said:


> Oh well, you did your best mate - they can't say they weren't war*m*ed.


I await the petrol bomb with quaking knees!


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 12, 2011)

rioted said:


> And often not.





Perhaps, but it is something that's never far away when people exist under the illusion that they're living outside the accepted norms of society.


----------



## Random (Jan 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Perhaps, but it is something that's never far away when people exist under the illusion that they're living outside the accepted norms of society.


 
I'd say the problem arises because the 'hippy' scenes clim to be breaking from these norms, yet are often actually reproducing them in a slightly different form. And the hypocracy of this makes it worse.


----------



## rioted (Jan 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Perhaps, but it is something that's never far away when people exist under the illusion that they're living outside the accepted norms of society.


There may be more sex, repressed Lefties often seem to have a fixation with it. But unless you think heterosexual relationships are inherently unequal I don't see what your opinion (more likely bigotry) is based on.

Personally I don't make sweeping generalisations of groups of people (except Lefties, and that is based on LOTS of experience). Hypocrites can be found everywhere. Even in the working class11


----------



## Random (Jan 12, 2011)

eleven indeed


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Aren't you being a little bit sexist here by painting the women as somehow gullible and the men as predators?


 
He's right though.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2011)

It's not so much gullible as idealistic. Just as it's reasonably easy for older men to get younger men to go and fight on their behalf by making the right arguments, it's no different for idealistic women.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2011)

Yes, thanks Thora, what I regularly witnessed (now a number of years ago) wasn't older men after some time falling in love, etc with someone they were participating in quite intense activity with, but often near planned attempts to make out with the younger women, often the most recent of 'recruits' yes, they are there in the AC movement, etc.

and yes, i still know some and many have 'regrets' anger about it all...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/471916.html

So he was not covering something up by collapsing the case?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2011)

Thora said:


> He's right though.


 
Aye. I met a pretty East European woman once who was married to an ugly millionaire. Therefore all East European women are gold diggers.


----------



## pk (Jan 12, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Aye. I met a pretty East European woman once who was married to an ugly millionaire. Therefore all East European women are gold diggers.


 
Was he bug eyed?


----------



## past caring (Jan 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> Yes, thanks Thora, what I regularly witnessed (now a number of years ago) wasn't older men after some time falling in love, etc with someone they were participating in quite intense activity with, but often near planned attempts to make out with the younger women, often the most recent of 'recruits' yes, they are there in the AC movement, etc.
> 
> and yes, i still know some and many have 'regrets' anger about it all...



I'm surprised that any of those women are still speaking to you, tbh.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

An article about this guy selling info to the big power companies has been pulled of the Daily Mails web site. Injunctions?

Were they suborning officers? 

Is there a corruption story brewing?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2011)

It does seem to say it all about the desperate nature of the people he was spying on, though. All the detective and spy films I've seen if the spy is exposed he doesn't get out of the room with all his bits intact. Confess and break down in tears in front of environmentalists and they give you a fucking counseling session.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 12, 2011)

Yes it must be an easy bit of work in that milieu. Would expect its like that in the left as well. All the hardcore ones must get AQ/ Islamism or Republicanism.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 12, 2011)

He must have thought he'd died and gone to heaven. After years of getting the cold shoulder for being plod, suddenly he's got long hair and loads of dreadlocked, middle class hippie chicks blowing him left, right and centre. No wonder he went native.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

Well this is allegedly the pulled article. 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/471946.html

Copper turns green, my arse.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 12, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ- you shudder to think what they will do to sex it up. Evil foriegn anarchists using  cuddly brit hippies as part of their plan to spread chaos and destruciton with flawed, compromised hero pc stone/kennedy (clive owen) caught in the middle. He is then exposed but uses his climbing skills to escape certain death from the baddies - followed by motor bikes vs PC Stone's van car chase with fireballs. But then he has  to rescue his (well meaning but misguided) hippy girl friend (angelina jolie)  from the black bloc (led by a totally OTT gary oldham doing evil foriegner)  thus earning her forgivenss for being a cop and together they stop the black bloc blowing up a nuclear reactor. Roll credits.
> 
> Or something like that.


 
Now that I'd watch


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> It does seem to say it all about the desperate nature of the people he was spying on, though. All the detective and spy films I've seen if the spy is exposed he doesn't get out of the room with all his bits intact. Confess and break down in tears in front of environmentalists and they give you a fucking counseling session.


i'd have his bollocks for nose-rings meself.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm hoping to be bez friends with this hero


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/mark-kennedy-policeman-corporate-spy

Money bothers.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 12, 2011)

jer said:


> I'm hoping to be bez friends with this hero


i thought you'd flounced? welcome back.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i thought you'd flounced? welcome back.


 
Yeah, back with chemical armour 

Every flounce, every fly.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 12, 2011)

In regards to a couple of posts; yeah, kicking the shit out of him would really have solved all the betrayal/hurt  - batter your friend to make yourself feel better, tip of the day huh.  IMO it's a credit to people if they can not just wack someone for betraying them like that, i'm sure it was the impulse thought amongst some, and even more sure "hippy terrorists beat up undercover" would be much less preferable a headline than the ones that have emerged so far, oh plus no case dropped for the people who've just got off most likely.

What weird world do some of you live in .  Is it just about personal vendettas etc, or the bigger picture and strategic objectives, actually turning ideology into achievements heh.

There's way more to be achieved through exposing this in the way that it has been surely, makes the met seem pretty deranged and wasteful, plus not able to keep their house in order if the 'eco-terrorists' and others end up seeming the good guys in the media and the courts.  I would imagine if Mark Kennedy's actually sincere about making amends he could be quite useful through his information and revelations, hmmm, then again that could be a bit misinformed...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 12, 2011)

Allegedly the udenrcover name of the second police officer is Lyn Watson. Operational in the Leeds area during the mid 2000s.

Edited to add 'undercover'.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 12, 2011)

Granuaid article on her

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/second-undercover-police-officer-unmasked


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 12, 2011)

Riklet said:


> In regards to a couple of posts; yeah, kicking the shit out of him would really have solved all the betrayal/hurt  - batter your friend to make yourself feel better, tip of the day huh.  IMO it's a credit to people if they can not just wack someone for betraying them like that, i'm sure it was the impulse thought amongst some, and even more sure "hippy terrorists beat up undercover" would be much less preferable a headline than the ones that have emerged so far, oh plus no case dropped for the people who've just got off most likely.
> 
> What weird world do some of you live in .  Is it just about personal vendettas etc, or the bigger picture and strategic objectives, actually turning ideology into achievements heh.
> 
> There's way more to be achieved through exposing this in the way that it has been surely, makes the met seem pretty deranged and wasteful, plus not able to keep their house in order if the 'eco-terrorists' and others end up seeming the good guys in the media and the courts.  I would imagine if Mark Kennedy's actually sincere about making amends he could be quite useful through his information and revelations, hmmm, then again that could be a bit misinformed...


 
Good post, Riklet


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 12, 2011)

Riklet said:


> In regards to a couple of posts; yeah, kicking the shit out of him would really have solved all the betrayal/hurt  - batter your friend to make yourself feel better, tip of the day huh.  IMO it's a credit to people if they can not just wack someone for betraying them like that, i'm sure it was the impulse thought amongst some, and even more sure "hippy terrorists beat up undercover" would be much less preferable a headline than the ones that have emerged so far, oh plus no case dropped for the people who've just got off most likely.
> 
> What weird world do some of you live in .  Is it just about personal vendettas etc, or the bigger picture and strategic objectives, actually turning ideology into achievements heh.
> 
> There's way more to be achieved through exposing this in the way that it has been surely, makes the met seem pretty deranged and wasteful, plus not able to keep their house in order if the 'eco-terrorists' and others end up seeming the good guys in the media and the courts.  I would imagine if Mark Kennedy's actually sincere about making amends he could be quite useful through his information and revelations, hmmm, then again that could be a bit misinformed...


utter fucking yarbles tbf.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> utter fucking yarbles tbf.


 
tbf those people had chance to do him over when they told him but didnt. That makes your view a bit lame.


----------



## Garek (Jan 13, 2011)

I think what is bollocks is the ieda that this man wants to make ammends. He's a rat stuck in a corner and looking for anyway out. Fool me once blah, blah...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

A cockney in Leeds eh. I hope you lot are comparing notes right now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 13, 2011)

Garek said:


> I think what is bollocks is the ieda that this man wants to make ammends. He's a rat stuck in a corner and looking for anyway out. Fool me once blah, blah...


 
Indeed. The fact that hes now working for a well dodgey sounding security firm run by ex special branch does not suggest a pauline conversion to the casue of planet bothering. Its more like he felt guilty about betraying his close friends and lovers and the whole madness of it was fucking with his head - which is not the same thing. 

He is still a cunt, hes still being paid to be a cunt and I wish him many many sleepless nights and ongoing trauma.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> tbf those people had chance to do him over when they told him but didnt. That makes your view a bit lame.


 
The climate mob are hardly the type to get physical are they?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 13, 2011)

This all sounds terribly dodgy ... 



> It is significant that Kennedy did not work for any police force. He worked for a murky organisation called the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). With a budget of £5m this operates as a branch of the National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU) which, in turn, works alongside the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU). Ask where this stands, and you will be told it reports to the Association of Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, codenamed Acpo(TAM).
> 
> Only those who have tarried in the foggy corridors of the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Metropolitan police can have any notion of the Orwellian extravagance of these places. Agencies, units and groups cruise shark-like round the feet of terrified Home Office ministers. Their staffs, expenses, overtime and accommodation are crammed into London's Scotland Yard and Tintagel House. If challenged, they incant their motto: "We keep you safe."
> 
> Kennedy's bosses in the NPOIU work for Acpo, but this is not what it seems. It is not, as its name suggests, the police officers' staff club, nor is it a public body of any sort. It is a private company, incorporated in 1997. It is sub-contracted by Whitehall to operate the police end of the government's counterterrorism and "anti-extremism" strategies. It is thus alongside MI5, but even less accountable.


 Grauniad


----------



## laptop (Jan 13, 2011)

> I find myself in agreement with Simon Jenkins (The state's pedlars of fear must be brought to account, 11 January) when he says that to have private companies and opaque agencies running undercover police operations cannot be right. However, he is both misled as to Acpo's role and omits to record that the use of undercover officers is highly regulated and governed in law through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Such operations are closely overseen by the surveillance commissioner and must be necessary, proportionate and lawful.
> 
> While the Metropolitan Police Service acts as lead force for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, the NPOIU reports through Acpo to senior police leaders across England, Wales and Northern Ireland because it is historically a national police asset, not owned by any individual force. However, any operations the NPOIU supports must be requested and authorised by individual police forces, not Acpo. I have put on record, including in this paper, my wish to move Acpo away from limited company status to become a professional policing body. I am pleased we have already secured inclusion under the Freedom of Information Act to take effect later this year, and our aim for the future is to clearly focus the organisation on leadership in policing, under a new governance structure in line with the government's recent consultation on policing.
> 
> ...



All the "limited company" stuff is because ACPO wants to be a national police force, but the member CPOs don't want a national force because that'd threaten their status and make them subject to the Home Secretary.


----------



## past caring (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A cockney in Leeds eh. I hope you lot are comparing notes right now.


 
Is there something in the water in Leeds?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 13, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> tbf those people had chance to do him over when they told him but didnt. That makes your view a bit lame.


I was talking about the implication that this lying deceitful fucker is being sincere in wanting to make amends. It's funny how his sincerety didn't trouble him whilst he was feeding back information secretly, it only came to the fore once his true status had been revealed (by accident). Can't be trusted at all, shouldn't ever be trusted again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

past caring said:


> Is there something in the water in Leeds?


 
Odd isn't it -again and again and again.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2011)

Innit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2011)

Dirty Leeds


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 13, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dirty Leeds


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dirty Leeds


 
WACCOE


----------



## revlon (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A cockney in Leeds eh. I hope you lot are comparing notes right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

revlon said:


>




The second best walk away from cam after Pat Mustard.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Innit.


 
Maybe Topcat can go up there and start pointing the finger at random people he takes a dislike to?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2011)

I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who has been doing a few fingertip calculations and deciding that one of their mates is probably a copper. I also can't help but think that based on the way I recently returned to activism after an extended sabbatical and dived straight into certain groups consisting entirely of people I didn't know from Adam a year ago, people are gonna wonder if maybe I'm not a copper myself. It's not really possible to figure out how much damage these kind of thoughts do to morale, friendships and the amount of stuff we can get done. All I know is the whole thing chills my blood.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 13, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who has been doing a few fingertip calculations and deciding that one of their mates is probably a copper. I also can't help but think that based on the way I recently returned to activism after an extended sabbatical and dived straight into certain groups consisting entirely of people I didn't know from Adam a year ago, people are gonna wonder if maybe I'm not a copper myself. It's not really possible to figure out how much damage these kind of thoughts do to morale, friendships and the amount of stuff we can get done. All I know is the whole thing chills my blood.



^^^ OB


----------



## strung out (Jan 13, 2011)

definitely


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2011)

Bah, rumbled. That's my lucrative private consultancy firm down the cludgie as well no doubt


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Maybe Topcat can go up there and start pointing the finger at random people he takes a dislike to?


 
Or maybe he can beg the state to fight his battles for him?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 13, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Or maybe he can beg the state to fight his battles for him?





He seems to think everybody except his fellow political infants are the state.

Who begs anyway?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 13, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who has been doing a few fingertip calculations and deciding that one of their mates is probably a copper. I also can't help but think that based on the way I recently returned to activism after an extended sabbatical and dived straight into certain groups consisting entirely of people I didn't know from Adam a year ago, people are gonna wonder if maybe I'm not a copper myself. It's not really possible to figure out how much damage these kind of thoughts do to morale, friendships and the amount of stuff we can get done. All I know is the whole thing chills my blood.


 
It really shouldn't be too hard to sus someone out. 

e.g....

-Have you met their family(preferably extended)? Has anyone been to a family gathering with them?
-Have been to their home town/local and met the friends they grew up with?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 13, 2011)

> Have you met their family(preferably extended)? Has anyone been to a family gathering with them?
> -Have been to their home town/local and met the friends they grew up with?



_'I was an only child, and I'm estranged from parents - I haven't seen them for more than a decade. I don't really want to talk too much about them because they were pretty abusive to me for most of my childhood. I've moved around a lot since then, and have real problems settling down in any one place, and never go back home because I don't see the point.'_

Could be real, could be bollocks, but how many people on this board have relationships with their families that are this broken down? I rarely, if ever, visit my home town, and people there only know me from school, which was 20 years ago. Not only that, but the allusion to abuse is also a confidence getter - it's an easy bait for someone to swallow and be concerned over etc

My point is your 'easy' way to suss someone out is nothing of the sort.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 13, 2011)

Also, I know many people who suffer from depression etc. and need to frequently take time out, and the very nature of activism means a lot of people get heavily involved for periods then "disappear" for a break. Because of work, relationships and other stuff I'm planning to be far less involved in stuff than I am currently from this summer for a while. If you start getting paranoid all of this likely very innocent behaviour could seem dubious.


----------



## laptop (Jan 13, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> your 'easy' way to suss someone out is nothing of the sort.


 
It would ensure that only people "of good family", as Jane Austen was wont to say, joined...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

What you 'planning' to do?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd isn't it -again and again and again.



not really odd--the usefulness of Leeds as a laboratory for secret state operations has been discussed before. see here.  How fitting, that, right on cue, a laptroll arrives...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

Larry O'Hara said:


> not really odd--the usefulness of Leeds as a laboratory for secret state operations has been discussed before. see here.  How fitting, that, right on cue, a laptroll arrives...


 
(Larry, you've reminded me i must sort out that vid for you.)


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 13, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> My point is your 'easy' way to suss someone out is nothing of the sort.



It depends Mr Soze. 

Would you want to trust someone (with your potential incarceration) who gave that story and had no one that was trusted as a close friend that would of shared some of these experiences?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2011)

I'd have thought the fact he had loads of money all the time would be more sus than anything. I'd maybe want to find out more about where his money came from.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have thought the fact he had loads of money all the time would be more sus than anything. I'd maybe want to find out more about where his money came from.



This as well.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What you 'planning' to do?


 
This to me? Well I'm planning to go deep undercover for a energy firm, that's for sure. But I'm going to have a lot less free time on my hands. Not really anyone on here's business, tbh - just pointed out that people's lives change and they drift in and out of activism and politics for very normal reasons


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> It really shouldn't be too hard to sus someone out.
> 
> e.g....
> 
> ...


 
Nah, none of my activist mates have met my family or been to my home town. They and it are a long way away. And how hard would it be to conjure up a fake sister or something for a trip to the pub or a dinner party?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nah, none of my activist mates have met my family or been to my home town. They and it are a long way away. And how hard would it be to conjure up a fake sister or something for a trip to the pub or a dinner party?


 
Bingo  -thats why you're worthless. Nice snaps though.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 13, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> It depends Mr Soze.
> 
> Would you want to trust someone (with your potential incarceration) who gave that story and had no one that was trusted as a close friend that would of shared some of these experiences?


 
No, but then I've met a few people from 'the fringes' from similar backgrounds who've generally turned out to be cocks to me and others - but that's from my personal experience, and were I to meet someone who said they left home early, have had to move around a lot and had an abusive parental relationship, I wouldn't automatically say 'copper' either.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bingo  -thats why you're worthless. Nice snaps though.


 
Nice cross-thread trolling


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nice cross-thread trolling


a)) i'm not b) wtf are you whining about curly?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 13, 2011)

Sometimes the obvious clues get missed so easily:


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 13, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I wouldn't automatically say 'copper' either.


 
That's not what I'm saying.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Sometimes the obvious clues get missed so easily:



I wonder if that is where he got the name from?!?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 13, 2011)

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thread complete.


----------



## laptop (Jan 13, 2011)

Beg pardon 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/activists-kennedy-stone-police-undercover

The 20 considering appealing - on the grounds that Kennedy/Stone would have been able to give evidence that they were indeed acting out of necessity.

Ingenious


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2011)

laptop said:


> Beg pardon
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/activists-kennedy-stone-police-undercover
> 
> ...


 
Excellent stuff. Hopefully this will drag even more embarassing details out of the plod/the cps/babylon in general.


----------



## classicdish (Jan 14, 2011)

Re. The difficulty of "vetting" people's backgrounds, especially if you rely on a stream of new volunteers for the latest action or campaign - isn't this why clandestine groups often use small "cells": they accept the reality that they are being spied so try and limit the damage it does by having autonomous cells that don't tell each other what they are doing, even if they all have a generally shared goal.

Personally if I did decide to do some protesting that could get me arrested/prosecuted I'd want to do my own thing with, at most, a handful of people who are already friends, I wouldn't want to join in with a massive group of people and operate according to some central plan - because I'd assume that the bigger the group and the more people involved who I didn't already know well from other contexts, the higher the chances we were all going to get caught, that there might be a spy there and they would have tons of prosecution evidence.


----------



## Maggot (Jan 14, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> The movie........
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...-to-story-of-climate-group-undercover-Pc.html


 


copliker said:


> Who Dares Wins without the guns or Lewis Collins. Who'd want to see that.



The Seven Year Snitch.


(Thanks to KRS for that)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2011)

Last of the god-men been busy in Iceland


----------



## paolo (Jan 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Beg pardon
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/activists-kennedy-stone-police-undercover
> 
> ...


 
Gotta love Bindmans. 

I'm a very satisfied one-time customer.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 14, 2011)

And another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/14/third-undercover-police-spy-cardiff


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2011)

"unprecedented" - lies


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2011)

> In a twist that will further unnerve senior police officers, it emerged that Kennedy has asked the public relations agent Max Clifford to sell his story.



Shameless cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2011)

There's a fourth in there as well.


----------



## Garek (Jan 14, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/14/third-undercover-police-spy-cardiff

Filth. Such an appropriate term.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2011)

In tomorrow's paper; all environmental activism in the UK for the last ten years has been carried out exclusively by police officers


----------



## pk (Jan 14, 2011)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 14, 2011)

> The undercover policeman Mark Kennedy was in the vanguard of militant anti-capitalist protesters who attacked Irish police officers at an EU summit in Dublin marking the accession of eastern European states to the union, Irish anarchists have told the Guardian.
> 
> Protesters who took part in actions with him allege that his involvement went further than just observing. They allege that he also made visits to Dublin to help train protesters and encouraged other activists to attack the police. This raises further questions about his role as an undercover officer and backs up suggestions he acted as an agent provocateur.


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/14/mark-kennedy-eu-summit-protest

What a PR disaster,.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Shameless cunt.


and people were bleating about how bad this cunt feels and his sincere regret.

fucking cunt, hope he dies a long and lingering death.


----------



## pk (Jan 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> and people were bleating about how bad this cunt feels and his sincere regret.
> 
> fucking cunt, hope he dies a long and lingering death.


 
Don't take the piss out of his bug eyes though!!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 14, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Gotta love Bindmans.
> 
> I'm a very satisfied one-time customer.


Bindmans are a very very good firm of lawyers.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Bindmans are a very very good firm of lawyers.


 
If they get me some decent compo I'll agree.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 14, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> If they get me some decent compo I'll agree.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 14, 2011)

There is a photo on fitwatch for the Leeds person if anyone wants to have a look and see if they recognise them.
'Lyn Watson'






Third one named as 'Marco Jacobs'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> There is a photo on fitwatch for the Leeds person if anyone wants to have a look and see if they recognise them.


 
it's like buses, in't it. you wait for ages then three come along at once.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 14, 2011)

why exactly is anyone reproducing pics of people on the most wanted list?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 14, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's like buses, in't it. you wait for ages then three come along at once.


Butchersapron pointed out its 4, one in London.

The Guardian are trying to confirm it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> why exactly is anyone reproducing pics of people on the most wanted list?


 
link or stfu


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 14, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


>



Shit facial hair, shit long hair and piercings. 

The sign of a cunt.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 14, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> link or stfu


begins to feel very messy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Butchersapron pointed out its 4, one in London.
> 
> The Guardian are trying to confirm it.


 
d'you have a link?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 14, 2011)

Its on the Guardian article I linked.





ferrelhadley said:


> And another.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/14/third-undercover-police-spy-cardiff





> Another alleged undercover police officer, whose name and details have been passed to the Guardian, is a male who posed as an environmental activist and was based in London for more than four years.


 


butchersapron said:


> There's a fourth in there as well.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 15, 2011)

I feckin knew that 'stone' touts face was familiar Mark Kennedy 'took part in attack on Irish police officers at EU summit'


> Michael D Higgins of the Irish Labour party is demanding that the Irish government seek an explanation from Britain as to why one of its undercover policemen was operating in the republic.
> "This kind of activity is totally unacceptable … There are many of us who are familiar with the destructive consequences, in terms of democracy, that have flowed from this kind of activity from the 1970s on in relation to Northern Ireland," the veteran Labour TD said


----------



## sunny jim (Jan 15, 2011)

Anybody else reckon it might be Mark Stone who's giving the other names to the guardian?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 15, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> Anybody else reckon it might be Mark Stone who's giving the other names to the guardian?



dunno.. why?


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 15, 2011)

one of the headlines in today's the times:  'Police hid tapes that put green protesters in the clear'



> The trial of six environmental campaigners accused of trying to shut one of Britain’s biggest power stations collapsed because police withheld secret recordings, The Times can reveal.
> 
> When prosecution lawyers abandoned the case last week, it appeared that an undercover police officer who had switched sides had compromised the case. But The Times has learnt that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) promptly abandoned the trial when it was informed that Nottinghamshire Police had suppressed secret tapes that “fatally undermined the case against the protesters”.
> 
> ...


----------



## sunny jim (Jan 15, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> dunno.. why?


 
well he'd know exactly who they are ....maybe he has gone native and the guardian is getting their info from somewhere


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2011)

all of it also proves my point about the predatory nature of a number of older male activists and how acceptable such behaviour is in that sub culture, and a S/C is what it is...


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2011)

tbh, Kennedy seems like a right wanker, and will be seen to be so when he sells his story, et , yet this man was a key player in the activist sub culture in the 00's, says something about such a movement to me..


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> tbh, Kennedy seems like a right wanker, and will be seen to be so when he sells his story, et , yet this man was a key player in the activist sub culture in the 00's, says something about such a movement to me..


Why? He was selected because he was so affable. If your involved with politics with a bit of socialising you dont really come down on women in their 20s getting laid, no matter what you think of it. Its between two adults, your not a moral guardian of people.Your talking like all climate\ arms trade\ anti capitalist\ pro Palistinian\ workers rights (etc) groups are some kind of paedo ring.

Adults fuck each other. Sometimes there is an age gap.

Being involved with a group trying to do something to make the world a better place does not make you everyones grandmother.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 15, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Shit facial hair, shit long hair and piercings.
> 
> The sign of a cunt.



ripping the piss out of the way someone looks is cheap.  Focus on their actions, please. Or lets see_ your_ pictures so we can rip the piss.


----------



## sunny jim (Jan 15, 2011)

Betcha the piercings are recording equipement


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2011)

touched a nerve methinks...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 15, 2011)

lol


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> all of it also proves my point about the predatory nature of a number of older male activists and how acceptable such behaviour is in that sub culture, and a S/C is what it is...


 
Where are are all these nubile young activists waiting to be seduced? 

I guess they are all doing glamorous direct action rather than leafleting estates


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 15, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


>



Both him and Kennedy look like they'd be at home playing air guitar to Meatloaf.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 15, 2011)

Does Ferris seduce naive students in his eco-tent?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2011)

I am quite worried about this police officer who infiltrated the anarchist scene in Cardiff . His modus operandi seems strangely familiar :



> His former girlfriend said she kept in touch with him for about a month via email, *text message* and the occasional postcard. Then the contact dried up.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> all of it also proves my point about the predatory nature of a number of older male activists and how acceptable such behaviour is in that sub culture, and a S/C is what it is...


 
do you think they also may have been Muslims?


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2011)

idiot...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> well he'd know exactly who they are ....maybe he has gone native and the guardian is getting their info from somewhere


 
I wouldn't have thought one undercover cop would know the identities of the others for precisely this reason. But then I also thought it was a big no no to get sexually involved while undercover.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> touched a nerve methinks...



Actually - when I saw the pic I thought he was an Urbanite - hence the rant - he could be anyone off here and it made me think how ridiculous it is to say they look like a cunt. They behaved like a cunt, but they look like anyone else.  Mark Kennedy was a boater (as part of his cover), he looks so much like so many of the boaters I've met up here - there's nothing that makes him stand out. There can't have been can there? He kept this up for a long time didn't he?

This whole scandal just makes me realise that people aren't as good a judge of character as they'd like to think.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 15, 2011)

interesting that there's been relatively little mention in the mainstream press of his involvment in anarcho and militant antifascist groups


----------



## sunny jim (Jan 15, 2011)

emanymton said:


> I wouldn't have thought one undercover cop would know the identities of the others for precisely this reason. But then I also thought it was a big no no to get sexually involved while undercover.


 
I thought they all came from the same team - whats to say they didnt train together?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

pinkmonkey said:


> ripping the piss out of the way someone looks is cheap.





Not if they have piercings, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. 

In Wilkinson's this morning, the middle aged woman on the till I went to had a flower tatooed on her neck and a nose ring. 'This is somebody's mother,' I thought. 'This is the society we're now living in.'


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> tbh, Kennedy seems like a right wanker, and will be seen to be so when he sells his story, et , yet this man was a key player in the activist sub culture in the 00's, says something about such a movement to me..


 
Have you never been fooled by anybody?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Not if they have piercings, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> In Wilkinson's this morning, the middle aged woman on the till I went to had a flower tatooed on her neck and a nose ring. 'This is somebody's mother,' I thought. 'This is the society we're now living in.'



You reactionary old git! Wtf is wrong with that?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You reactionary old git! Wtf is wrong with that?





You might see cause for hope even while society descends into infantilism and self-mutilation; I don't. 

I bet you drink milk shakes in Cafe Nero.*


*Earlier on there was a bloke sitting close by in said establishment. His drink looked to me suspiciously like a milk shake. He was 55 if he was a day. He was wearing baggy knee-length shorts. In January.


----------



## tommers (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Not if they have piercings, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> In Wilkinson's this morning, the middle aged woman on the till I went to had a flower tatooed on her neck and a nose ring. 'This is somebody's mother,' I thought. 'This is the society we're now living in.'


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Not if they have piercings, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> In Wilkinson's this morning, the middle aged woman on the till I went to had a flower tatooed on her neck and a nose ring. 'This is somebody's mother,' I thought. 'This is the society we're now living in.'


 
How do you think she felt? On top of everything else she had to deal with judgmental tossers like you.


----------



## sunny jim (Jan 15, 2011)

I met Kennedy/stone once and got to say he had me fooled.....seemed like a decent bloke. People in our movement are quite easy going on the whole, Im wondering if the whole thing he did in the UK was a ruse to infiltrate the european scene where its more up for it than here


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

two sheds said:


> How do you think she felt? On top of everything else she had to deal with judgmental tossers like you.




I presume she wasn't a mind reader. To me, she looked very pleased with herself. Always a bad sign.


----------



## Thora (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Not if they have piercings, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> In Wilkinson's this morning, the middle aged woman on the till I went to had a flower tatooed on her neck and a nose ring. 'This is somebody's mother,' I thought. 'This is the society we're now living in.'


 
Sometimes I can't believe I'm somebody's mother too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> *Earlier on there was a bloke sitting close by in said establishment. His drink looked to me suspiciously like a milk shake. He was 55 if he was a day. He was wearing baggy knee-length shorts. In January.



We live in such decadent times.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We live in such decadent times.




It can't be genuinely decadent when everything's on the never-never.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

Thora said:


> Sometimes I can't believe I'm somebody's mother too.




I can understand it of the likes of you. But this woman was to all intents and purposes a normal person.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You reactionary old git! Wtf is wrong with that?


 
I think he's attempting some kind of humour.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You might see cause for hope even while society descends into infantilism and self-mutilation; I don't.
> 
> I bet you drink milk shakes in Cafe Nero.*
> 
> ...





He was texting all the time as well by the way.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I think he's attempting some kind of humour.





An alien concept to those with anarchee on their minds it seems.


----------



## Maggot (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> *Earlier on there was a bloke sitting close by in said establishment. His drink looked to me suspiciously like a milk shake. He was 55 if he was a day. He was wearing baggy knee-length shorts. In January.


 Outrageous behaviour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> An alien concept to those with anarchee on their minds it seems.


 
Fairy nuff. Irony antenna on the blink. Hard to tell with you, given your disapproving nature, though.


----------



## Thora (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I can understand it of the likes of you. But this woman was to all intents and purposes a normal person.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 15, 2011)

I thought this LLETSA bloke was an undercover cop, but he can't be as he is not making a real attempt to assimilate here. Unless of course it is a subtle double bluff, where he deliberately draws attention to himself.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I thought this LLETSA bloke was an undercover cop, but he can't be as he is not making a real attempt to assimilate here. Unless of course it is a subtle double bluff, where he deliberately draws attention to himself.




Is that meant to be funny or do we have yet another straitjacket job here?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2011)




----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>




I'm rapidly losing faith in anarchism. The entire 'movement' seems to be made up of undercover cops or mental cases. 

'The masses' are going to have to look elsewhere for inspiration after all.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

And don't even get me started on grown adults who read Harry Potter.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And don't even get me started on grown adults who read Harry Potter.


 
Now you've just gone too far.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And don't even get me started on grown adults who read Harry Potter.


 
Amen to that brother.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 15, 2011)

This whole thing makes me wonder if there'll be a whole new breed of activist - hermit activists who operate alone and trust no one.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 15, 2011)

pinkmonkey said:


> This whole thing makes me wonder if there'll be a whole new breed of activist - hermit activists who operate alone and trust no one.


 
No-Topcat is devising a new strategy whereby real police agents are ignored but posters on the internet who refuse to express glib optimism and an enthusiasm for rioting are accused of being 'hairies.' The trick is to think yourself into some kind of 1900 Joseph Conrad world but with more drugs, the internet and wide screen telly.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 15, 2011)

fuck, anyone could be a cop now.
i reckon butchersapron is filth. 
very convincing act, almost too convincing


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 15, 2011)




----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 15, 2011)

I could be a cop, you could be a cop. 

We are all cops.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 15, 2011)

evening all.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 15, 2011)

pinkmonkey said:


> I could be a cop, you could be a cop.
> 
> We are all cops.


 
Speak for yourself madam


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 15, 2011)

pcrongrong


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 15, 2011)

cunt is selling his story to the Daily Mail!


----------



## newbie (Jan 15, 2011)

pinkmonkey said:


> I could be a cop, you could be a cop.
> 
> We are all cops.


 
you've read Stasiland as well?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 15, 2011)

ah didums Undercover Pc tells of 'nightmare'


> The undercover policeman who controversially posed as an environmental activist has broken his silence to describe how his life has become a "living nightmare".
> Mark Kennedy told The Mail on Sunday he has escaped to the United States amid fears for his safety.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2011)

Fuck's sake  What did he expect?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 15, 2011)

gawkrodger said:


> cunt is selling his story to the Daily Mail!


 
Oh good, that could provide evidence to convict him of the offences that his betrayed activist friends committed. He after all was a prime mover in their activities and coughing up the details for the gutter press should enable him to be investigated. On conviction he would have to hand over the proceeds of the newspaper story as you are no longer able to make money from criminal act of which you are found guilty. Icarceratio  would also disrupt his ongoing work for the other agencies, private and public who have him on the payroll.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 15, 2011)

Hello, hello, hello what do we 'ave 'ere then sonny Jim?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 15, 2011)

Telegraph gets the missus.



I note Kennedy and Notts seem to be accusing each other of hiding tapes.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 15, 2011)

David Shayler, former MI5 (Security Service) officer, in a debate with Larry O'Hara had, amongst other things, this to say:



> Certainly MI5 went crazy during the eighties about anarchists and Trotskyists, having lists of people...



On YouTube.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 15, 2011)

dp


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 15, 2011)

audiotech said:


> dp


 
David Shayler is not a good witness for anything. He is completely nuts.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 15, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> David Shayler is not a good witness for anything. He is completely nuts.


it's hardly reliable eh?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 15, 2011)

Mail story

In a phrase 'pity me!'. May have a case against the police in terms of duty of care. The man sounds a bit, well, like he is struggling to work out reality.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2011)

Just heard him on the radio. Talking just like a copper too.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 15, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Mail story
> 
> In a phrase 'pity me!'. May have a case against the police in terms of duty of care. The man sounds a bit, well, like he is struggling to work out reality.


_My son has been crying and says he never wants to see me again,’ he says_ 

should have thought about that before you sold a load of people down the river you utter cunt.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 15, 2011)

what radio station/programme?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2011)

News. Radio 4. Expect to hear him all over the fucking place...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Mail story
> 
> In a phrase 'pity me!'. May have a case against the police in terms of duty of care. The man sounds a bit, well, like he is struggling to work out reality.



Fuck him. He will have been paid many tens of thousands of pounds for giving that interview. Max Clifford is his agent now.


----------



## Garek (Jan 15, 2011)

There anyone still willing to feel some sympathy for him?


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2011)

Reading the _Fail_ piece, he's clearly utterly lost the plot. Now is not the time he wants to be lying through his teeth to the press. Did Clifford advise him to do that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

Eurghh. Just looked at that piece. 

What.

A.

Cunt.

But in many ways, what an unremarkable man. Typical dull-witted copper.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 16, 2011)

So, why do we think that the want to keep 'Lynn's' pseudonym out of the papers?


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

Daily Mail quoting Kennedy said:
			
		

> His £50,000 annual police salary was paid into a private account in his real name. All other payments, which he says came to £200,000 a year, went into his ‘Mark Stone’ account.


 
I'd assumed his "250k a year" was (exaggeration aside) covering the more general costs - e.g. fake stuff, fake home (if he had one), deployment/admin/management costs etc.

Not that 50k a year was salary, and 200k a year went into a personal slush fund. Why would the OB pay 200k 'surplus'? I'd have thought another 50k would be temptation enough for some to live a double life.

Any guesses as to the veracity of this?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 16, 2011)

i hope he gets piles.


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i hope he gets piles.


 
250k was piles too much


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Reading the _Fail_ piece, he's clearly utterly lost the plot. Now is not the time he wants to be lying through his teeth to the press. Did Clifford advise him to do that?


 
What do you reckon he's lying about? The being in touch '24/7'?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 16, 2011)

> Five policemen unaware of his undercover role savagely beat him up at a protest.



LMAO 

I really hope that's true...


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> So, why do we think that the want to keep 'Lynn's' pseudonym out of the papers?


 
Somewhere I read that police (and somewhere else, "intellgence") had made representations to the papers that her life would be at risk because of *other* undercover work she'd done.

But what of ossifers B (Cardiff) & C (London)... and, if we were to believe the Fail's writeup of Kennedy saying he knows of four others, ossifer D?


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> LMAO
> 
> I really hope that's true...


 
Even better would be if they got identified. Imagine the moral complexities to add to the current clustrerfuck.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> LMAO
> 
> I really hope that's true...


 
tbh, if I were in such an operation, I'd stage it so that I was beaten up. A modern take on the old Gestapo trick of shooting one of your own to prove yourself.


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you reckon he's lying about? The being in touch '24/7'?


 
Number of women slept with leaps out... he said only two; there appear to be women, plural, in Germany thinking of issuing civil proceedings:



> Ströbele said Kennedy was also at risk of civil actions brought by German-based activists. Women who feel he tricked them into bed could potentially demand damages, as well as others who think Kennedy hurt them physically or emotionally, said the politician.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/14/undercover-police-officer-germany-row


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that angle. 'obtaining sex by deception'. oh ho.


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

I know nothing about Germany's laws on sexual misconduct.

But it'd add to the clusterfuck immensely if a German court issued extradition proceedings....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm sure he'll have plenty of money saved up for the damages, what with not having spent any of his wages for seven years.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Somewhere I read that police (and somewhere else, "intellgence") had made representations to the papers that her life would be at risk because of *other* undercover work she'd done.
> 
> But what of ossifers B (Cardiff) & C (London)... and, if we were to believe the Fail's writeup of Kennedy saying he knows of four others, ossifer D?


 
Ossifers B and C have been identified - there's pictures of them on this thread, IIRC.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm sure he'll have plenty of money saved up for the damages, what with not having spent any of his wages for seven years.


 
He had an estranged wife and two kids living in one of the most expensive countries in Europe. His salary was paying for his first life, the slush fund his second.

Not that he won't be flush, mind.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

Here ya go, laptop. Think these might be Ossifers D and B, according to your labels. Ossifers A and B according to the media's (I think).



ferrelhadley said:


> There is a photo on fitwatch for the Leeds person if anyone wants to have a look and see if they recognise them.
> 'Lyn Watson'
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

Tell you what, this story had been a bizarre journey so far. A few months ago, for me, it was simply an interesting development that I first read about on Urban.

Funny to think that... "Bristol and notts people - check your contacts, check your lists."

... is now a multi-country shitstorm. Where even the fail and the torygraph are falling over themselves to get a lead over the graun.


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

Neither of those was infiltrating *my* drugs ring


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm not excusing him for one second, but it's actually impossible not to 'go rogue' to an extent during an extended period undercover like that. He's only human and will form connections with the people he's around all the time. 

That only makes his snivelling performance for the press all the more despicable, mind you. He appears to be solely concerned with saving his own skin.


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> the slush fund his second.


 
Still struggling to believe you'd need 200k pa for that. He's either talking shite, or there's something I'm not understanding.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Still struggling to believe you'd need 200k pa for that. He's either talking shite, or there's something I'm not understanding.


 
Well he was nicknamed 'flash'. He was basically bankrolling the whole scene.

As a comedian said on the radio last night, it's no good just sitting around waiting for some action – they've got to make it happen. After all, if we'd sat around waiting for Saddam to build some weapons of mass destruction, we still wouldn't have invaded Iraq yet.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2011)

Very few _details_ about any of this tally across any of the published accounts.

Eg


The year he joined the police
The year he joined the Met
His time in the police before going into undercover work
The year he applied to the NPOIU
The year he began working undercover for the NPOIU
The year he began working undercover in the environmental/activist/anarchist/anti-fascist milieu
The year he split/separated/was estranged from his wife
The number of sexual relationships with women he had whilst undercover (both in the UK and elsewhere)
His knowledge of other NPOIU undercover officers or similar
His length of time spent undercover
Whether he resigned, or was told he was being pulled out then resigned, or was sacked, or was redeployed
His involvement with the Icelandic direct action movement
His involvement with the Icelandic police and other official agencies
His involvement with German and other European police forces and other official agencies
His involvement with commercial organisations whilst a serving police officer, and dates thereof
His involvement in commercial organisations subsequent to his leaving the police, and dates thereof
The contents of, and what happened to, the evidence he gathered in relation to the Ratcliffe action on both days of discussion
The size and nature of his remuneration and other payments in kind whilst serving as an undercover police officer
His own personal drugs habits or lack thereof
His own personal lawbreaking or lack thereof
Being recruited because he had tattoos/long hair/piercings etc vs getting tattoos/long hair/piercings etc after being recruited
His relationship to 'private security/intelligence' individuals or organisations interested in the milieu within which he operated (in particular Ireland)
 
...and so on.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Here ya go, laptop. Think these might be Ossifers D and B, according to your labels. Ossifers A and B according to the media's (I think).


 
No, there is...

Mark Stone aka Flash aka PC Mark Kennedy (Nottingham)
Officer A aka Lyn Watson (Leeds)
Officer B aka Marco aka Mark Jacobs (Cardiff & Brighton)
Officer C (London?)
Officer D (speculated by Laptop because in Kennedy's whine-and-dine in the _MoS_ he said he knew of 4 officers still in)


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well he was nicknamed 'flash'. He was basically bankrolling the whole scene.



200k a year, for grass roots?

Maybe he was chucking money into *everything*, but that amount dwarfs what we know already - the costs of vans and travel to do his (as yet unexplained) international work.

He's either talking shit, or there's much bigger story here.



> As a comedian said on the radio last night, it's no good just sitting around waiting for some action – they've got to make it happen. After all, if we'd sat around waiting for Saddam to build some weapons of mass destruction, we still wouldn't have invaded Iraq yet.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Still struggling to believe you'd need 200k pa for that. He's either talking shite, or there's something I'm not understanding.


He had a pretty expensive second life, though. He was travelling to Europe regularly for activist meetings - loads, if you believe the interview - providing equipment and transport, possibly doing a fair few drugs, DJing, womanising ... and he had a cover story of being a drug runner wanting to do something decent with his ill-gotten gains, so he could easily bankroll a lot of stuff without it being too suspicious (although evidently, some were suspicious).


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not excusing him for one second, but it's actually impossible not to 'go rogue' to an extent during an extended period undercover like that. He's only human and will form connections with the people he's around all the time.
> 
> That only makes his snivelling performance for the press all the more despicable, mind you. He appears to be solely concerned with saving his own skin.


 
He comes across as intensely naive - which perhaps makes sense for a copper's kid. Like his astonishment that his tapes weren't entered into evidence, and having no idea why that might have happened. How much of that is an act is hard to tell, of course.

Those tattoos are pretty hard core, though. If he's genuinely a clean-shaven copper type, that's quite a commitment to make for the job, especially when it really isn't necessary.


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> He had a pretty expensive second life, though. He was travelling to Europe regularly for activist meetings - loads, if you believe the interview - providing equipment and transport, possibly doing a fair few drugs, DJing, womanising ... and he had a cover story of being a drug runner wanting to do something decent with his ill-gotten gains, so he could easily bankroll a lot of stuff without it being too suspicious (although evidently, some were suspicious).


 
I've no doubt he did all that, but that's, what, 50k at the most? 100k if he was handing out coke to all-comers.

200k. Two hundred fucking grand.

You're a science person. 200k. Da ya think?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2011)

> Kennedy says he knew of 15 other operatives doing the same work as him during his eight years undercover.
> 
> ‘Some got busted, others left,’ he says. ‘*I was the longest-serving operative*. At the time I left in 2009, there were at least four other operatives. I never did anything to jeopardise the work or lives of my fellow officers and I will not start now.’



From _Mail on Sunday_ story.

The bolded bit is of particular interest, I feel, as it seems to suggest that no one involved in that scene before 2003 (or 2000, or 1999, depending on which version of the narrative that is being spun you choose to run with), who is still involved in it, is an undercover - that all but perhaps a few shorter-term sleepers have been identified, rumbled, blown, pulled out. 

Whether that claim is a sustainable one time will surely tell.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

> I never did anything to jeopardise the work or lives of my fellow officers and I will not start now.



You just did, dimwit.


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> He comes across as intensely naive


 
Yep - judging by the mail interview, he's still in denial. He can't bring himself to condemn either the activists nor his employers. And can't understand that there's controversy about it. With someone like that, they're very dangerous not because of malice (they have no malice - it doesn't even occur to them that something they are doing is wrong) but because of delusion.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I've no doubt he did all that, but that's, what, 50k at the most? 100k if he was handing out coke to all-comers.
> 
> 200k. Two hundred fucking grand.
> 
> You're a science person. 200k. Da ya think?


I think it'd be pretty easy, yes. That many flights, probably a lot of hotels on those occasions when he disappeared, renting a nice gaff, buying equipment, travelling all over the place, probably helping a few activists out with expenses, paying for printing ... It's easy to blow that kind of money living that kind of life.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

He had a scene to bankroll, after all. Someone's got to pay for all that action.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 16, 2011)

feck him from a great height... 





> I was a natural at undercover work and I loved it,’ he says.


Gonna be interesting to see the comments...maybe a wee comment or two maybe in order from disgusted from the shires  
tbh: having him look like a prick in the Fail is a gift.. They can hardly be blamed of left-wing bias... Their moral outrage will soon kick in over his 'sexual liasons'.. It goes against their grain to support out of marriage shagging about...
and feckin Clifford, just as I begin going softer on him, he shows what a prick he is taking on scum like this as a client....


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I think it'd be pretty easy, yes. That many flights, probably a lot of hotels on those occasions when he disappeared, renting a nice gaff, buying equipment, travelling all over the place, probably helping a few activists out with expenses, paying for printing ... It's easy to blow that kind of money living that kind of life.


 
You may well be right, but the maths is making my head spin right now.

I hope someone with time and inclination to delve (are you listening Graun? ) can shed more light on it.

200k a year on that kind of stuff must surely contribute to the case for agent provacateur.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

That's where the charges of agent provocateur and grounds for appeal for the convicted 20 gain credibility, IMO. What were the operational expenses, and how was the money spent.


----------



## where to (Jan 16, 2011)

interview reads to me like he realises he's being hung out to dry and is making a plea to non-activists and non-cops that he did nothing wrong "don't let them fuck me" etc.

everything he says is purely to cover his back.

seems to be a pragmatist who wanted to have his cake and eat it... and still does.


----------



## where to (Jan 16, 2011)

i see he wasn't missed by "redwatch"


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> What were the operational expenses, and how was the money spent.


 
Bang on.


----------



## paolo (Jan 16, 2011)

where to said:


> seems to be a pragmatist who wanted to have his cake and eat it


 
Oxymoron


----------



## metalguru (Jan 16, 2011)

Video interview now up on the Mail on Sunday site, featuring his new clean-cut look. He really does sound a bit like John Major as someone observed earlier


----------



## rioted (Jan 16, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm rapidly losing faith in anarchism.





> You have no faith to lose, and you know it.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 16, 2011)

Eco warriors are so fucking dumb.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 16, 2011)

I watched the video (even though it meant I had to go via the Mail on Sunday website, which is against my beliefs!  One of the things that struck me is how physically unattractive he appears to be, now that he has been turned back into a stereotypical copper. His clothes are unattractive, his haircut is years out of date, and he seems shifty. I suppose he is genuinely anxious and whatever, but, looking at the photos, I would have said that he was an attractive man when he had long hair, tatty clothes and was not clean shaven.  

I suppose that might say something about me, and the fact that I am attracted to men who are long haired and tatty, mind you!


----------



## Chairman Meow (Jan 16, 2011)

According to the ST he lives in Kanturk, Cork where he was widely known to be an undercover cop. I'd say having to live in Kanturk is a pretty good punishment for him.


----------



## kropotkin (Jan 16, 2011)

Guineveretoo said:


> I watched the video (even though it meant I had to go via the Mail on Sunday website, which is against my beliefs!  One of the things that struck me is how physically unattractive he appears to be, now that he has been turned back into a stereotypical copper. His clothes are unattractive, his haircut is years out of date, and he seems shifty. I suppose he is genuinely anxious and whatever, but, looking at the photos, I would have said that he was an attractive man when he had long hair, tatty clothes and was not clean shaven.


 

Yes, that is definitely one of the more important dimensions of this whole saga- and one that has sadly been overlooked by most commentators.


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

"Senior police" do their own whine and dine to the _Fail_, in a piece oddly hard to find on the site:



> Having become increasingly convinced that Kennedy was not telling his police handlers everything about his undercover life, surveillance cameras were installed aboard Tamarisk. The spy was being spied upon by his own handlers — and the four-man surveillance team were horrified by what they saw.
> 
> ‘He was having sex with another activist,’ a senior police source told me. ‘It was all there on the *surveillance tapes.
> 
> ...



Sour grapes  

And a ham-fisted attempt to say "we were, despite appearances, in control"...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

That's really quite funny. Copper and his bosses have it out in the Daily Mail. Bizarre.


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

An that article differs from his interview in a number of respects, including where his passport was found; how many relationships; where his wife was living, when...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> "Senior police" do their own whine and dine to the _Fail_, in a piece oddly hard to find on the site:


It was a story on Saturday that the Mail seemed to have run to keep its profile up, a similar piece was also on Sky. It may even be the Mail lifting the Sky story. They had the big chequebook out so it was in their interest to retain the media profile of this one.





laptop said:


> An that article differs from his interview in a number of respects, including where his passport was found; how many relationships; where his wife was living, when...


Every article differs from nearly every other one.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I'd assumed his "250k a year" was (exaggeration aside) covering the more general costs - e.g. fake stuff, fake home (if he had one), deployment/admin/management costs etc.
> 
> Not that 50k a year was salary, and 200k a year went into a personal slush fund. Why would the OB pay 200k 'surplus'? I'd have thought another 50k would be temptation enough for some to live a double life.
> 
> Any guesses as to the veracity of this?


The accounting may have been taking the department whole and deviding it by deployed officers and him thinking that was his value. There would need to have been space rented out at ACPO towers for the operations, probibly weekly rail tickets from Nottingham to London (first class) for Kennedy plus hotels and the special branch people handling him would have needed to be paid from that budget and their travel too Nottingham (first class) accomodation, possibly renting office space of of the local plod. Cars, IT support, personel department, perhaps a civvie 'hacker' or at least a company available for the occasional bit of snooping, funding for following up on leads, surveillance of identified target, wiretaps, food allowances and the like. Kennedy would have needed regular training that would need to come out of the budget as well. The support costs for 10 Jonny Englishes could burn through 2.5 million without a missing recipt. 

But ofcourse their may have been a little bit of the old Detective McNulty about this and various recipts for overtime on these cases paying for other work..... there is something of the Tom Sharpe does The Wire about this whole affair. 

The real questions on the financial side of this affair seem to lie around these private detective companies, are they paying the police for information they sell to the utilities and arms companies,  are the police using them to get information or use methods they cant, are the police or the companies hyping things for financial gain, how blurry are these lines?

Well my opinion anyway.


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> The accounting may have been taking the department whole and deviding it by deployed officers and him thinking that was his value. There would need to have been space rented out at ACPO towers for the operations, probibly weekly rail tickets from Nottingham to London (first class) for Kennedy plus hotels and the special branch people handling him would have needed to be paid from that budget and their travel too Nottingham (first class) accomodation, possibly renting office space of of the local plod. Cars, IT support, personel department, perhaps a civvie 'hacker' or at least a company available for the occasional bit of snooping, funding for following up on leads, surveillance of identified target, wiretaps, food allowances and the like. Kennedy would have needed regular training that would need to come out of the budget as well. The support costs for 10 Jonny Englishes could burn through 2.5 million without a missing recipt.
> 
> But ofcourse their may have been a little bit of the old Detective McNulty about this and various recipts for overtime on these cases paying for other work..... there is something of the Tom Sharpe does The Wire about this whole affair.
> 
> ...


 
We're talking about the £200k/year that Kennedy claims was paid into Stone's bank account. Most of the costs you're listing there would have been paid directly, not via Stone.

There seems to be a fair bit of collaboration between the police and private firms which are targets of protesters, with lines very blurry. See the Smash EDO campaign in Brighton.


----------



## newbie (Jan 16, 2011)

he's a modern sort of chap with a modern sort of Blackberry.  Did he post here, did he post anywhere else?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 16, 2011)

newbie said:


> he's a modern sort of chap with a modern sort of Blackberry.  Did he post here, did he post anywhere else?


 
I think the original post links to Indymedia and IIRC there were comments on there stating names he posted under, not on here tho.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 16, 2011)

Chairman Meow said:


> According to the ST he lives in Kanturk, Cork where he was widely known to be an undercover cop. I'd say having to live in Kanturk is a pretty good punishment for him.


well if he was widely known to be a british undercover cop in Cork I wouldnt have given his survival rate much chances.. heaps of dissidents etc.. around there..


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 16, 2011)

Just read the interview in the mail - god what a pile of nausuating, self-justifying, whinging bilge. 
Inferring that the eco-activists would attack his kids ('i know what these people are capable of'). 
His delusional boasting about what great work he did and how he saved his girlfreinds life. 
Fucking sickening. 
The worst is how we are supposed to feel sorry for _him_ becasue of how upset his lover and freinds were when they found out about his betrayal - 'it was so painful for _me_'

Utter cunt. I like what the other undercover cop they talk to said about kennedy - 'the most dangerous thing he had to do was eat a lentil curry'.


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> the most dangerous thing he had to do was eat a lentil curry.



Would that be:



> It also matters psychologically if you know that the risk of being found out simply amounts to having to finish your bowl of lentils.



In the Indy?


----------



## ymu (Jan 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Would that be:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Indy?


 
Ooh, useful precedent cited in there:



> "I can understand how someone like Kennedy was deployed for so long. His deployment inside the protest movement is said to have started seven years ago. The timing is also important, because the Met had just been humiliated in court after another long-term infiltration was found to have spiralled out of control. In that case, Operation Cotton, the Met had allowed two UCs posing as money launderers on the Costa del Sol to operate for seven years. It cost tens of millions of pounds. I was one of the many UCs asked to go to Spain with cash to fund their high-rolling lifestyle.
> 
> "The targets were an allegedly corrupt network of drugs and tobacco smugglers working with bent Gilbraltarian politicians.* But after a lengthy trial, the judge threw out the prosecution. He called it 'state created crime'*.


----------



## Zabo (Jan 16, 2011)

According to that nice man Mr. Max Clifford, on the radio this morning, he is helping to 'support' him with his book deal, documentary series deal and film deals. Apparently he contacted Mr. Clifford seeking his help.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> We're talking about the £200k/year that Kennedy *claims *was paid into Stone's bank account.


Hes a clown. I simply dont believe anything he says and I _strongly_ doubt senior officers pumped that kind of money through him.


----------



## Garek (Jan 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ooh, useful precedent cited in there:


 
Never heard of Operation Cotton before. What the fuck are the met up to? Sounds like Carry On Spying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jul/29/ukcrime.jeevanvasagar


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 16, 2011)

If hes in fear of his life - why has he allowed his new, cleancut image to be plastered all over the newspapers?


----------



## Zabo (Jan 16, 2011)

Assuming he does make a film and a book I wonder what legal redress their would be for members of the group - especially the sex romps i.e. privacy and  confidentiality etc.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 16, 2011)

i hope his cock falls off.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Eco warriors are so fucking dumb.


 
Do you think there is a case for the anarchist scene to beef up its security and vet new members?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 16, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Do you think there is a case for the anarchist scene to beef up its security and vet new members?


 
Its not for people like 'ernesto' to decide. That is for the member of each group to decide. Groups knew the risks before Kennedy was exposed but accepted that broadening the movement was more important than security.

There is far more security in being a broadening movement than being ideologically and security pure movemnt. Though a much smaller group does mean smaller rounds for down the pub.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2011)

Yeah, but if one bloke is buying all the rounds...

TBH the drug dealer wanting to do good story sounds like it ought to have raised alarm bells to me. 

To my knowledge, I've only ever known one person who's done a big drug deal and it certainly wasn't him who told me about it. It's not the kind of thing you talk about. Also, this person in question spent the money on fast cars and property. If you risk a long jail sentence to get rich, you tend to spend the money on yourself...

I dunno. Maybe he was believable. Doesn't sound to me like he should have been.

Either way, it makes him someone not to trust. People who break the law and brag about it tend to get caught.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 17, 2011)

The only thing the cops would do to The Annekissed Scene is nurture it and keep it going as it is so ineffective and helpful to The State.

Luke and Tom etc.


----------



## chazegee (Jan 17, 2011)

You've got to be emotionally crippled to be able to do the spy thing.

I'm not surprised he fooled people though, human's are pretty adaptable.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 17, 2011)

A fair bit of any optimistic views I had in him as a person as not being a total cnut etc have evaporated upon reading of the "Max Clifford connection" which he seems to have established.

Urgggggggggggghhhh.  Yuck.  I hate that badger-eyebrowed PR shit dribbler.  How can he whinge about being "in danger" from eco-warriors, it's especially laughable when he's crapping on about his life's details even more, including where he lives etc.


----------



## Thora (Jan 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH the drug dealer wanting to do good story sounds like it ought to have raised alarm bells to me.


 That sounds like bollocks to me.  90% of what's been written in the last few days is rubbish.


----------



## Boycey (Jan 17, 2011)

is there a name and photo for the london activist/copper yet?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2011)

I reckon he was canny and left his passport lying around.

After all, returning with your tail between your legs to traffic duties isn't dramatic enough to entice the cheque books of Hollywood producers.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Its not for people like 'ernesto' to decide. That is for the member of each group to decide. Groups knew the risks before Kennedy was exposed but accepted that broadening the movement was more important than security.
> 
> There is far more security in being a broadening movement than being ideologically and security pure movemnt. Though a much smaller group does mean smaller rounds for down the pub.



How is there more security in being a broadening movement? 

I appreciate that each group should decide but lets face it we aren't entirely sure if there are still some undercover police inside these groups. I thought Ern might have an independent and objective view that might be useful for others to consider.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 17, 2011)

Boycey said:


> is there a name and photo for the london activist/copper yet?


 
There's this on indymedia.....

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472162.html


----------



## laptop (Jan 17, 2011)

teqniq said:


> There's this on indymedia.....
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472162.html


 
Nope: them's Nottinham, Leeds & Cardiff.

As far as I've seen, the only mention of "the London cop" is in the Guardian, dropped in as an aside to an outing of the Cardiff cop.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> Nope: them's Nottinham, Leeds & Cardiff.
> 
> As far as I've seen, the only mention of "the London cop" is in the Guardian, dropped in as an aside to an outing of the Cardiff cop.


 
Ok, apologies. I think I knew somewhat about the Cardiff cop some months ago though (I seem to remember a mate who's occasionally involved with CAN telling me about this).


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 17, 2011)

teqniq said:


> There's this on indymedia.....
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472162.html


 
All this information coming out about known undercovers, activists who have had direct contact should perhaps organise some kind of attempt to map out the MO/profile of them.  The obvious thing's seem well reported, but I'll say them anyway...

*no known family ties to local area
*regular disappearances 
*ability/willingness to assist activism in practical ways (money, organising, being in "the thick of things")

I'm sure there are other things as well (age range - late 20s to late 30s? - affable people? lack of in-depth knowledge about politics?  people suspicious that they are UC?).  I'm making this up as I go along, obvi, as I have no direct knowledge of any of these officers, but surely there are lessons to be learned?  Or does thinking like this foster paranoia which would lead to groups closing themselves off to "newcomers"?


----------



## rioted (Jan 17, 2011)

Thora said:


> That sounds like bollocks to me.  90% of what's been written in the last few days is rubbish.


Too fucking right!! It's depressing how many on here take the press's speculation and fabrication, Kennedy's utterances included, as fact.  Some people read a bit and then become experts, ridiculing those who have inside knowledge or insights. And the arrogance of those who DEFINITELY wouldn't be fooled - you can tell he's a wrong'un just by looking at him!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 17, 2011)

> you can tell he's a wrong'un just by looking at him!



He has funny bumps on his head. Clear sign that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2011)

But a flash twat who has a passing resemblance to Bono?

He could single handedly defeat capitalism but you'd still think he was a bit of a cunt.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 17, 2011)

rioted said:


> And the arrogance of those who DEFINITELY wouldn't be fooled - you can tell he's a wrong'un just by looking at him!



I don't think anyone has said that on this thread. I'm sure most sympathise with those duped. I certainly do.

But that doesn't mean we can't rip the piss out of the cunt.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2011)

rioted said:


> Too fucking right!! It's depressing how many on here take the press's speculation and fabrication, Kennedy's utterances included, as fact.  Some people read a bit and then become experts, ridiculing those who have inside knowledge or insights. And the arrogance of those who DEFINITELY wouldn't be fooled - you can tell he's a wrong'un just by looking at him!


 
He certaintly named dropped someone who posted on here and other boards


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 18, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> *no known family ties to local area
> *regular disappearances
> *ability/willingness to assist activism in practical ways (money, organising, being in "the thick of things")



See, if I were an activist, I'd fit in those categories.  My family is in Yorkshire, I dissappear for months at a time to go boating and I always throw myself into causes in the way you describe.

I think it's going to be very, very hard to suss people.  What do you do, go and visit their 'mum' with them just to make sure they're legit?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 18, 2011)

pinkmonkey said:


> I think it's going to be very, very hard to suss people.  What do you do, go and visit their 'mum' with them just to make sure they're legit?



I think you've missed the point.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> I think you've missed the point.



How has he?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 18, 2011)

Well, the idea wasn't to purge any such people from involvement with activism, for a start.  I did mention that it might foster unnecessary paranoia, and that it was just a suggestion.  If such a "profiling" exercise were to be carried out, it would simply be a list of "early warning markers", and should in no way be taken as proof of any police involvement whatsoever. 

The other thing was that these are just the "signs" I have read about - I haven't, to my knowledge, met any undercovers.  The idea was to get people that have had direct contact with at least one UC and build a more detailed profile.  As I pointed out, there would hopefully be more "general indicators" which could be used (I did list some suggestions...).  Whilst it may sound stupid, the suggestion "suspect they are UC" may be a really important one - from what I have read some of these officers were suspected already yet were still moving within activist circles - don't just dismiss your hunch as paranoia (whilst also trying not to be paranoid...)

Anyways, just an idea. There would be significant issues with it, the least of which would be the police would see it soon enough and may well "change up" their methods.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> How has he?


 
The vast majority of political activism isn't naughty enough to require high levels of security/paranoia.

The few jobs that are ought to be done between people that know each others background IMO.


----------



## pk (Jan 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> How has he?


 
'she' not he.

Waves @ pinkmonkey


----------



## strung out (Jan 19, 2011)

more pics of 'marco'
















http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/2011/01/18/more-pictures-of-undercover-cop-marco/



> Old 'friends' of Marco from Cardiff have described him as a large, stong man, around 5'11'' and 15/16 stone. Carrying a little too much weight around the middle. His accent is said to be Derby.
> 
> They have also suggested that people who have been in contact him may remember him for his 'catchphrases', little phrases that were used frequently to deflect question or discussion, or to lighten situations. "Dear diary..." he'd say when we'd be discussing the days/weeks happenings. "And relax..." at the end of meetings or stressful conversations. Everything was "dinky do". He'd do a "welfare check" to see how you were, and generally things were ridic/hillar/bloody marv. Other people's witticisms were greeted with "did you see what he did there?". And that's a "negadive" (negative) or "check".
> 
> Cardiff Anarchist Network are in the process of releasing a statement detailing how he was discovered, and how he operated. Should be interesting reading.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 19, 2011)

Blimey, he sounds like a right twat. Bloody marv. Knob.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 19, 2011)

I can't believe:

a) how much tax-payers' money is being wasted on inflitrating such wet-blanket saddos as the eco-warriors and Annekissed Scene - I want coppers infiltrating drugs, sex trafficking and paedo gangs, and arresting tax dodgers like Phil Green!

b) how soppy the soap-dodgers are, anyone with any fucking sense can smell a copper from a mile off.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 19, 2011)

strung out said:


> more pics of 'marco'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a bellend.


----------



## chazegee (Jan 19, 2011)

Were the hoods who missed Donnie Brasco wet?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 19, 2011)

chazegee said:


> Were the hoods who missed Donnie Brasco wet?


 
Different country, nob-head.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 19, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> I can't believe:
> 
> a) how much tax-payers' money is being wasted on inflitrating such wet-blanket saddos as the eco-warriors and Annekissed Scene - I want coppers infiltrating drugs, sex trafficking and paedo gangs, and arresting tax dodgers like Phil Green!
> 
> b) how soppy the soap-dodgers are, anyone with any fucking sense can smell a copper from a mile off.


I want them to try and infiltrate armchair revolutionaries. Those are the really dangerous people. They act alone, yet do nothing that you can really put your finger on.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 19, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I want them to try and infiltrate armchair revolutionaries. Those are the really dangerous people. They act alone, yet do nothing that you can really put your finger on.


 
Or even online British nationalists who hide behind silly usernames on obscure messageboards.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 19, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Or even online British nationalists who hide behind silly usernames on obscure messageboards.


 
Ernestolynch isn't that silly. I think its an OK username.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 19, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Ernestolynch isn't that silly. I think its an OK username.


 
You're the Brit Nat. Chief.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> The vast majority of political activism isn't naughty enough to require high levels of security/paranoia.
> 
> The few jobs that are ought to be done between people that know each others background IMO.


 
TBF if you're going to do 'naughty' activism surely your group/collective/shoal should be using the time honoured and tested 'cell' system anyway, where no one knows what other cells are doing etc. It's been working for issue-based non-linear combatants in asymetric conflict environments, and Triad gangs, for a long time now.


----------



## rioted (Jan 19, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> b) how soppy the soap-dodgers are, anyone with any fucking sense can smell a copper from a mile off.


I doubt that you'd EVER be in a position to find out.


----------



## Random (Jan 19, 2011)

strung out said:


> more pics of 'marco'


 I can honestly say that the first time I met 'Marco' I later said to a friend ' keep an eye on him, I think he's a copper'. Only time I've ever done that.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 19, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> You're the Brit Nat. Chief.


 
Brit Nat Chief? That sounds like a job with perks. Do I get my own villa in Monmothshire? Free tickets to see that Great British team Manchester United?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 19, 2011)

Rioted, lol.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 19, 2011)

rioted said:


> I doubt that you'd EVER be in a position to find out.


 
That's not true. I'm sure Ernesto occassionally sees police through his net curtains as they drive through his leafy English suburb.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 19, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> I can't believe:
> 
> a) how much tax-payers' money is being wasted on inflitrating such wet-blanket saddos as the eco-warriors and Annekissed Scene - I want coppers infiltrating drugs, sex trafficking and paedo gangs, and arresting tax dodgers like Phil Green!


that I'd certainly agree with. It's a scandal


----------



## gabi (Jan 19, 2011)

seems kinda nuts to me too. surely they've got more bigger threats to be investigating than fucking climate camps. whats the rationale for blowing all this money on such a pointless exercise?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Rioted, lol.


 
Ian Beale.


----------



## Thora (Jan 19, 2011)

Random said:


> I can honestly say that the first time I met 'Marco' I later said to a friend ' keep an eye on him, I think he's a copper'. Only time I've ever done that.


 
You've got Copdar.


----------



## revlon (Jan 19, 2011)

gabi said:


> seems kinda nuts to me too. surely they've got more bigger threats to be investigating than fucking climate camps. whats the rationale for blowing all this money on such a pointless exercise?


 
i'd say interal police politics. ACPO and its attend private surveillance organisations have a vested interest in ensuring their status is maintained hiring out their services to the various police forces and justify their role/position/funding on establishing a 'threat' [domestic extremists] then monitoring that threat. 

Normal policing stuff will be done through normal policing channels. ACPO has got its greasy fringerprints all over this.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 19, 2011)

Those of us in Cardiff who knew and had Marco in our midst have written this response to the confirmation that he was a cop. Constructive criticism welcome.

http://southwalesanarchists.wordpre...n-on-the-infiltration-by-mark-‘marco’-jacobs/


----------



## paolo (Jan 19, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> Those of us in Cardiff who knew and had Marco in our midst have written this response to the confirmation that he was a cop. Constructive criticism welcome.
> 
> http://southwalesanarchists.wordpre...n-on-the-infiltration-by-mark-‘marco’-jacobs/


 
Nicely written piece.


----------



## yield (Jan 19, 2011)

Not sure if this has already been posted.
Plain-clothes Metropolitan police officers were at G20 demonstrations
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 January 2011



> The Metropolitan police was forced to admit today that one of its senior commanders gave false information to MPs when he denied having plain-clothes officers in the crowd at the G20 demonstrations in London in 2009.  Giving evidence to the House of Commons home affairs committee a month after the protest – in which thousands of demonstrators clashed with police – Commander Bob Broadhurst insisted there were no plain-clothes officers among the crowd, saying it would have been too dangerous to do so.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 19, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Nicely written piece.


 
That's not constructive  but it's good to hear. Ta.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 19, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> Those of us in Cardiff who knew and had Marco in our midst have written this response to the confirmation that he was a cop. *Constructive criticism welcome.*
> 
> http://southwalesanarchists.wordpre...n-on-the-infiltration-by-mark-‘marco’-jacobs/


 
Good, informative and interesting piece.  Very occasionally seems to veer away from "known facts" to "speculation".  I daresay that this speculation is far from baseless, and would highlight again that I haven't met any of these undercovers so am able to offer a particularly informed opinion, but I do have to wonder how you can be so sure of bits like 


> We believe that in at least one case – the showing of an animal rights film with an accompanying talk – he put on an event purely to gather intelligence on the people who would attend.



& even 


> he had a number of key objectives....to stop CAN functioning as a coherent group.



Whilst I appreciate that you are making educated guesses, he may have put on the animal rights film just to appear to be doing something, to increase his profile in a wider section of the activist community.  Similarly, his disruptive behaviour could just be the way that he is (some people are naturally manipulative and malicious and almost can't help but spread distrust and disharmony amongst groups of people...) rather than a mission objective.

Anyway, I hope that is taken in the constructive way it was meant.  In short, "just the facts, ma'am".  Overall, though, a very useful explanation of what he did and the effects it had.  What a cunt.  I really feel for those that were betrayed by this man.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2011)

'gave false information'?

is that like 'lied'?


----------



## pk (Jan 19, 2011)

Idaho said:


> That's not true. I'm sure Ernesto occassionally sees police through his net curtains as they drive through his leafy English suburb.


 
If he lives where I think he does, it ain't leafy unless discarded dog poo bags count as leaves.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 19, 2011)

The plot thickens,oh dear:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/undercover-policeman-married-activist-spy


----------



## OneStrike (Jan 19, 2011)

peterkro said:


> The plot thickens,oh dear:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/undercover-policeman-married-activist-spy


 

It gets worse, it seems they were given license to do whatever they wanted.


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

"the senior police officer managing the crisis in undercover operations insisted that officers were strictly banned from having sexual relationships with their targets"

LOL, I'd call it a "honey trap" if I were speaking legalese, precisely the same type of "honey trap" that Colin Stagg, the "so-called" murderer of Rachel Nickell fell victim to - and was awarded a record sum of money as a result.

But let's face it... look at the state of these people. One thing the police fail at is the ability to form normal relationships. And going undercover means they re-invent their lives from scratch and pretend to be anything but what they really are. Some might say they reveal a truth to themselves which once uncovered cannot be hidden, like an awkward hard-on in a sauna.

But look what this romantic tale of espionage and counter-culture delivered!

Gaze your eyes (if you can!) upon this fine example of sensible precautionary policing in a 21st century Britain!







Like I said before on this very thread - one eye on the pot-heads, and the other up the Ratcliffe cooling towers.

You think with all that taxpayers money and a work visa in the USA he might be able to get that romantic thousand-yard stare down to at least 50 metres with a good Hollywood surgeon?

LOL. 

http://www.policecouldyou.co.uk/

Oh, there was a little drummer and he loved a one-eyed cook
He loved her oh, he loved her though she had a cock-eyed look
With her one eye on the pot and the other up the chimney

And this couple went a courtin' for to walk along the shore
Said the drummer to the cookie "You're the girl that I adore"
With her one eye on the pot and the other up the chimney

Said the drummer to the cookie "Will you name the wedding day?"
Said the cookie "We'll be married in the merry month of May"
With her one eye on the pot and the other up the chimney

Said the drummer to the cookie "Will you buy the wedding ring?"
Said the cookie "Now you're talkin' that would be the very thing"
With her one eye on the pot and the other up the chimney

When they went to church to say I will the drummer got a shock
For her one eye killed the parson and the other stopped the clock
With her one eye on the pot and the other up the chimney

(trad. Irish folk song)


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 20, 2011)

Indymedia Ireland feature... some interesting details about the scums activities in Ireland


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

Very interesting...





"turned injun didn't ya?"


----------



## OneStrike (Jan 20, 2011)

Are such people chosen from the pool of officers?  Or is it on a volunteer basis to be assigned to a 'new division' or however the police would describe such a role?  I would be interested to know what kind of psychological profile they consider suitable for long term deep undercover roles such as this, given that it is entirely different to getting in with terrorists intent on murder or even football firms I.D style, in as much as there is next to little danger to the public.  Where the fuck else are the government placing people, do the Womens Institute have covert intelligience operatives within?

How do they chose to be the operatives?  what kind of psychological profiling do they apply and are the undercover scum head-hunted?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 20, 2011)

Rioted


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> How do they chose to be the operatives?  what kind of psychological profiling do they apply and are the undercover scum head-hunted?


 
I have the answer to that right here:


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)




----------



## classicdish (Jan 20, 2011)

pk said:


> LOL, I'd call it a "honey trap"


cf. the honey monster:


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

I've said it once and I'll say it again - if you DNA sampled every single serving and retired police officer you'd probably solve a good third of all the UK unresolved rape cases and a fair few murders too.

Of course that is just my opinion. But I'll not submit to a DNA database before every single cop that ever served in the UK has done so first.


----------



## OneStrike (Jan 20, 2011)

haha, cheers for the explanation!

PK, It's late and I can't judge your seriousness all that well.  On the assumption that DNA testing/analysis is kept well away from the hands of the police force then i agree that OB should have to submit, certainly as a priority before the public has to.  With the knowledge of DNA collection protocol are police not in a fiduciary position when it comes to advising criminals or even better placed to frame people?  (stuff of the movies i know, but still feasible to a copper backed into a corner?)


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> haha, cheers for the explanation!
> 
> PK, It's late and I can't judge your seriousness all that well.  On the assumption that DNA testing/analysis is kept well away from the hands of the police force then i agree that OB should have to submit, certainly as a priority before the public has to.  With the knowledge of DNA collection protocol are police not in a fiduciary position when it comes to advising criminals or even better placed to frame people?  (stuff of the movies i know, but still feasible to a copper backed into a corner?)


 
I'm far from serious at the best of times - but I genuinely 100% believe that DNA testing/profiling/databasing is utterly wrong.

Therefore - when it was mooted a few years back as a real plan to build a national database - my argument was "OK, as long as you FIRST send DNA samples of every single copper, judge, and prison warden that ever served in the UK, male or female, to an independent test centre anonymously (to the lab testers) and see how many serious crimes that little process would clear up, only then will I be happy to submit my own".

After all - if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, right??


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 20, 2011)

Great idea PK, I would include armed forces/Army personnel too... great rebuttal for those wanting the profiling on citizens, never thought of that way....


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Great idea PK, I would include armed forces/Army personnel too... great rebuttal for those wanting the profiling on citizens, never thought of that way....


 
Aye - not wanting to lump the Armed Forces in with the Old Bill though - never really been hassled by a soldier without good reason (that incident a few years back in the Shoreditch hotel with the lesbian girls and the endless supply of free beer after the bar staff went home doesn't count!)


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

meanwhile the story grows and grows


> A police spy married an activist he met while undercover in the environmental protest movement and then went on to have children with her, the Guardian can reveal.
> 
> He is the fourth spy now to have been identified as an undercover police officer engaged in the covert surveillance of eco-activists. Three of those spies are accused of having had sexual relationships with the people they were targeting.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> Those of us in Cardiff who knew and had Marco in our midst have written this response to the confirmation that he was a cop. Constructive criticism welcome.
> 
> http://southwalesanarchists.wordpre...n-on-the-infiltration-by-mark-‘marco’-jacobs/


 Are you really sure that Marco was responsible for your poor group dynamics? I've been involved in several political groups where people didn't talk to each other and there was heavy drinking going on. Aren't you giving him too much credit for being able to influence the group in this direction?


----------



## pk (Jan 20, 2011)

Fathering kids with a target is beneath contempt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

Is that a spiillers records t-shirt? Did he go to Geneva/Annemasse or was that  too early?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is that a spiillers records t-shirt? Did he go to Geneva/Annemasse or was that  too early?



If you mean the photo where he's sitting in a red t-shirt, it doesn't look like the previous Spillers shirt, and he wouldn't have been into the Spillers sort of scene. He was into bad heavy metal - is there any other sort? - and that should have set alarm bells ringing, lol. He wasn't in Annemasse, that was a couple of years before he showed up, iirc.



Random said:


> Are you really sure that Marco was responsible for your poor group dynamics? I've been involved in several political groups where people didn't talk to each other and there was heavy drinking going on. Aren't you giving him too much credit for being able to influence the group in this direction?



You seem to imply that we are giving him too much credit, which would suggest you have grounds for implying this. If you have, shout them out, for I haven't seen you at anarchist meetings in Cardiff recently. If you don't think we're capable of making a reasoned assessment of his influence, then fine. But I know that prior to his arrival we were a group of people who had politics and DA in common, but who would largely return home after meetings. He massively encouraged a drinking culture, which in retrospect, allowed him to build a _personal_ set of relationships that served as a bridge to disrupt political relationships. How else could he have done it? As far as poor group dynamics go, again, you sound like you don't trust us to make a "before" and "after" judgement. If so, fine, but we have always recognised that we are a diverse group of people with differing political perspectives, and we managed that reasonably effectively, imo. His influence, simply put, was that he lied to both sides of an invented hippy/spiky divide about what the "other group" were doing/saying, and people were unwise enough to allow that corrosive influence to take hold.

If I sound unduly touchy about this, it is because there are quite a few people, good friends, in Cardiff who are undergoing some painful soul-searching at the mo, and we issued the statement to try to give others the benefit of our admitted mistakes.


----------



## paolo (Jan 20, 2011)

peterkro said:


> The plot thickens,oh dear:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/undercover-policeman-married-activist-spy


 
For the dramatisation of this one, how about a Ray Cooney style farce?

"Oops, I married my target!", starring Bernard Cribbins and Hattie Jacques.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> i'd say interal police politics. ACPO and its attend private surveillance organisations have a vested interest in ensuring their status is maintained hiring out their services to the various police forces and justify their role/position/funding on establishing a 'threat' [domestic extremists] then monitoring that threat.
> 
> Normal policing stuff will be done through normal policing channels. ACPO has got its greasy fringerprints all over this.


You're almost certainly right, but why the whole nation isn't going mental at this outrageous misuse of the public's money is quite beyond me. We now know there are at least FOUR undercoover cops; kennedy, jacobs, watson and boyling. that's potentially millions mis-spent
e2a; mis-spent on infringing people's right to protest


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> Those of us in Cardiff who knew and had Marco in our midst have written this response to the confirmation that he was a cop. Constructive criticism welcome.
> 
> http://southwalesanarchists.wordpre...n-on-the-infiltration-by-mark-‘marco’-jacobs/


If you don't mind me saying, considering all the damage ONE BLOKE did, he's either an utter genius in his way - or you were, as a group, incredibly naive and incautious. A tad gullible, as well. You need to develop SOME sort of defence mechanism against a repeat; and fully checking out 'mr loner full time activist' intensely is a good start point, next time one pops up. I do understand you don't want to succumb to raging paranoia, though.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2011)

that is a spillers t btw

fairplay on the piece mate


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> If I sound unduly touchy about this, it is because there are quite a few people, good friends, in Cardiff who are undergoing some painful soul-searching at the mo, and we issued the statement to try to give others the benefit of our admitted mistakes.


You're the one who asked for criticism, and that's the part of the story I thought sounded unlikely.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 20, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> haha, cheers for the explanation!
> 
> PK, It's late and I can't judge your seriousness all that well.  On the assumption that DNA testing/analysis is kept well away from the hands of the police force then i agree that OB should have to submit, certainly as a priority before the public has to.  With the knowledge of DNA collection protocol are police not in a fiduciary position when it comes to advising criminals or even better placed to frame people?  (stuff of the movies i know, but still feasible to a copper backed into a corner?)



Slightly ot, but the Tories are closing the FSS and forensic work is going private. In an interview on R4, a representative of the OB said that they will probably take forensic work "in-house". Make of that what you will.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 20, 2011)

Random said:


> You're the one who asked for criticism, and that's the part of the story I thought sounded unlikely.


 
I asked for _constructive_ criticism, but an (unfounded/ill-informed/tactless) assumption that we had "poor group dynamics" wasn't quite what I was hoping for.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> I asked for _constructive_ criticism, but an (unfounded/ill-informed/tactless) assumption that we had "poor group dynamics" wasn't quite what I was hoping for.


I've given you some above - hope it helps


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> I asked for _constructive_ criticism, but an (unfounded/ill-informed/tactless) assumption that we had "poor group dynamics" wasn't quite what I was hoping for.


 Don't take it as a personal affront. From meeting Marco I didn't see him as a genius manipulator, but maybe he was. Mark Stone never disrupted the groups I was in with him and I doubt that disruption was part of the undercover officer's mission. Info gathering via a functioning group is surely more useful than making one small group go kaput, and then having to become mates with yet another bunch of anarchists?


----------



## laptop (Jan 20, 2011)

I remember mutterings a dozen years ago about this:



> Boyling's operation would prove to be so successful that he played a central organising role behind the so-called Carnival Against Capitalism in 1999, one of the major anti-capitalist demonstrations of the past two decades. Those involved in organising the protest recall that he was "navigator" in a car that had been intended to block Upper Thames Street, in central London, kickstarting a day in which thousands of activists would clash with police.
> 
> The woman who was driving the car – purchased for £200 – recalls how Boyling made what at the time appeared to be a stupid error. He left the window open, enabling police to open the door, take off the handbrake, and push the car away.
> 
> ...



Jim Boyling = Jim Sutton

I'm guessing the Guardian was holding off while they persuaded the activist who married him after he confessed to her to "tell her side of the story"...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

N30? Euston? Hmm...people been muttering about that ever since...


----------



## laptop (Jan 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> N30? Euston? Hmm...people been muttering about that ever since...


 
That'd be the police van that was conveniently left at Euston.

Upper Thames Street was J18


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

Yeah, diff things, just meant that looking back lot of stuff looks _different_...


----------



## past caring (Jan 20, 2011)

Did I ever post on here about how we got a call from a Mail (or was it the Standard?) journo in advance of Euston to ask whether we were going to be in attendance as C18 were turning out?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

Fucking hell, dodgier and dodgier.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fucking hell, dodgier and dodgier.


 
CLass War told a journalist 'we're not going to Euston, N30, its a set up', journalist blames Class War for the event!


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If you don't mind me saying, considering all the damage ONE BLOKE did, he's either an utter genius in his way - or you were, as a group, incredibly naive and incautious. A tad gullible, as well. You need to develop SOME sort of defence mechanism against a repeat; and fully checking out 'mr loner full time activist' intensely is a good start point, next time one pops up. I do understand you don't want to succumb to raging paranoia, though.


 
Its still quite surprising that they would send 15 undercover cops to spy on the movement, at a cost of approx 4 million a year, to infiltrate a small and loose 'movement'. But, they've done it and we have to move on. Up here in the North East we're thinking through people who've come to 'have a look at the movement' on a one (or 2) off basis, and are thinking about more deep infiltration too.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 20, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> I asked for _constructive_ criticism, but an (unfounded/ill-informed/tactless) assumption that we had "poor group dynamics" wasn't quite what I was hoping for.


 
I read all the article, I found it useful. I hear that Marco played the 'I'm stereotypical working class' and not a hippy line, did he play other lines as well to different people?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Up here in the North East we're thinking through people who've come to 'have a look at the movement' on a one (or 2) off basis, and are thinking about more deep infiltration too.


yes, I certainly think that's a good idea


----------



## laptop (Jan 20, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> CLass War told a journalist 'we're not going to Euston, N30, its a set up'



* penny drops *


And to think that at the time I thought it was merely stupid...


----------



## Garek (Jan 20, 2011)

For those of us too young to know, can some one please give some background to Euston/N30?


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 20, 2011)

demo called 5 months after J18 in a stupid place (Euston Station - easily blocked off, contained and surveilled). Police van conviently left in the middle with no coppers in or nearby.

Old Bill s60 everyone and police van gets trashed


----------



## Garek (Jan 20, 2011)

gawkrodger said:


> demo called 5 months after J18 in a stupid place (Euston Station - easily blocked off, contained and surveilled). Police van conviently left in the middle with no coppers in or nearby.
> 
> Old Bill s60 everyone and police van gets trashed


 
Cheers. 

I know Euston Station well so was rather surprised to here it was the scene of a protest.


----------



## revlon (Jan 20, 2011)

gawkrodger said:


> demo called 5 months after J18 in a stupid place (Euston Station - easily blocked off, contained and surveilled). Police van conviently left in the middle with no coppers in or nearby.
> 
> Old Bill s60 everyone and police van gets trashed


 
the smoke damage from that van is still visible on the bus terminus roof underneath the building.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2011)

Some think him 'barmy' I know, but listening to and reading David Shayler he puts forward the view that the intelligence services strategy was to get as many names as possible on file, as a way to avoid the 'secret states' past cock-ups. Seems plausible, but idiotic at the same time? Looks like another Peter Wright and 'bungling' and whatever 'across London' and beyond?

Calm down and check-in the healthy paranoia.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> the smoke damage from that van is still visible on the bus terminus roof underneath the building.


 
tfl cheapskate fucks. Can't even be arsed to clean a roof.


----------



## treelover (Jan 20, 2011)

'I remember mutterings a dozen years ago about this'


RTS Tops (and there were a number) thought loads of people were spies


----------



## revlon (Jan 20, 2011)

well known leeds anarchist/anti-fascist has made a public statement about his relationship with kennedy. Astonishing really - the complete opposite of the eco dreads knitted tree hugger. I can't imagine just what he was feeding back to his handlers about antifa. Lots of fingers in lots of pies.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> well known leeds anarchist/anti-fascist has made a public statement about his relationship with kennedy. Astonishing really - the complete opposite of the eco dreads knitted tree hugger. I can't imagine just what he was feeding back to his handlers about antifa. Lots of fingers in lots of pies.


 
He has signed and published it.  Why the mysterious allusion to a 'well known leeds anarchist/anti-fascist'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

Why was he named in that original article - why the only name?


----------



## revlon (Jan 20, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> He has signed and published it.  Why the mysterious allusion to a 'well known leeds anarchist/anti-fascist'?


 
nothing to do with mysterious allusion - he _is_ a well known anarchist/anti-fascist, don't see the benefit in bandying his name about here.


----------



## revlon (Jan 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why was he named in that original article - why the only name?


 
covering his back


----------



## past caring (Jan 20, 2011)

What original article? What statement? Any links - ta.


----------



## revlon (Jan 20, 2011)

statement: http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1270

original mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347478/Mark-Kennedy-Undercover-policeman-tells-story-8-years-eco-warriors.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> well known leeds anarchist/anti-fascist has made a public statement about his relationship with kennedy. Astonishing really - the complete opposite of the eco dreads knitted tree hugger. I can't imagine just what he was feeding back to his handlers about antifa. Lots of fingers in lots of pies.



Isn't it likely that his long term goal/target was indeed the likes of Antifa, black bloc anarchos + autonomists )perhaps with the foreign view) and ELF end of the enviros?

Pretty good statement from Barnsley


----------



## Demu (Jan 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> well known leeds anarchist/anti-fascist has made a public statement about his relationship with kennedy. Astonishing really - the complete opposite of the eco dreads knitted tree hugger. I can't imagine just what he was feeding back to his handlers about antifa. Lots of fingers in lots of pies.


 
Link??

Apologies just noticed


----------



## Dan U (Jan 20, 2011)

Demu said:


> Link??


 keep reading


----------



## october_lost (Jan 20, 2011)

Anyone seen this?

Makes the following claims


> 1) That many good quality photos of Kennedy existed, and were in the possession of his close friends, which were not posted to Indymedia.
> 
> 2) That one of the Ratcliffe defendants, Simon Lewis, contacted Kennedy sometime after he was uncovered as a cop and asked for his help.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

Who are these people? The claims about Jordan have been around for ages and are based on him talking to the OB as a voice for RTS - see past threads on here and elsewhere. Is grassy knoll a molland reference? Whole heap of claims with nothing in that article whatsoever to back them up. They need to be backed up.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 20, 2011)

@ Ocober Lost: All unsubstantiated claims though, with no proof offered??


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 20, 2011)

it's starting to do my head in now.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 20, 2011)

Just wish the twee-huggers had done his head in, couldnt they have whipped him with twigs or something at least?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 20, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> CLass War told a journalist 'we're not going to Euston, N30, its a set up', journalist blames Class War for the event!


i must admit that a lot of people i knew were extremely skeptical about the euston affair, the immediate outcomes but more importantly, the rationale offered for ever thinking it was a good idea in the first place. best avoided. obv.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 20, 2011)

Something like on the documentary on environmentalism - the Wicker Man, would have been nice.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jan 20, 2011)

what i find more interesting really is that, prior to j18, rts had been a very peaceful, proactive event that had made its point extremely efficiently and well. 

direct actions had taken place that had inspired people and challenged some of the preconceptions of how you could protest and make your point.

and then cunty-chops came along and it all became very violent, very quickly.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i must admit that a lot of people i knew were extremely skeptical about the euston affair, the immediate outcomes but more importantly, the rationale offered for ever thinking it was a good idea in the first place. best avoided. obv.


yep, we had nothing to do with that one. Actually, IIRC pretty much none of the groups outside london did.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 20, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> it's starting to do my head in now.



I know there is another thread.. But it is all too convenient all coming out now, echoes of 'divide and conquer'...
Feck em, just keep on doing what you can..


----------



## chazegee (Jan 21, 2011)

Are there any non-police in the movement?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 21, 2011)

chazegee said:


> Are there any non-police in the movement?


 
Only the spooks and the hacks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> what i find more interesting really is that, prior to j18, rts had been a very peaceful, proactive event that had made its point extremely efficiently and well.
> 
> direct actions had taken place that had inspired people and challenged some of the preconceptions of how you could protest and make your point.
> 
> and then cunty-chops came along and it all became very violent, very quickly.


 
i have yet to meet anyone who thinks j18 was anything other than a victory. as for very violent very quickly, you seem to be forgetting the police ran over a woman and reversed over her, which does tend to rile a crowd somewhat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Its still quite surprising that they would send 15 undercover cops to spy on the movement, at a cost of approx 4 million a year, to infiltrate a small and loose 'movement'. But, they've done it and we have to move on. Up here in the North East we're thinking through people who've come to 'have a look at the movement' on a one (or 2) off basis, and are thinking about more deep infiltration too.


 
it's all right, your little coterie is unlikely to be infiltrated by covert cops. it's not as though your part of durham's a hotbed of anarchist activity or anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2011)

october_lost said:


> Anyone seen this?
> 
> Makes the following claims


 
i was joking about john jordan being a tall grass some years ago.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2011)

revlon said:


> statement: http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1270
> 
> original mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347478/Mark-Kennedy-Undercover-policeman-tells-story-8-years-eco-warriors.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


 
If Mark Bansley posts here I'd invite him to PM me and I can tell him about the suspicions about Stone that some of us had early on, and about how Stone dealt with them. They're certainly not a revisionist fiction on my part.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Mark's around but he's got severely limited interent access right now.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2011)

Random said:


> If Mark Bansley posts here I'd invite him to PM me and I can tell him about the suspicions about Stone that some of us had early on, and about how Stone dealt with them. They're certainly not a revisionist fiction on my part.



How did Stone deal with them out of curiosity? Don't mean this as a loaded question or a criticism just interested.


----------



## revlon (Jan 21, 2011)

gawkrodger said:


> Isn't it likely that his long term goal/target was indeed the likes of Antifa, black bloc anarchos + autonomists )perhaps with the foreign view) and ELF end of the enviros?
> 
> Pretty good statement from Barnsley


 
stone comes across as a bit of a chancer. But he must've reported back the barnsley connection (which seems to be acknowledged on both sides his introduction to the political 'scene'), which throws up all sorts of questions, not least his ability to fool everyone,  not just middle class eco activists, about who he was.  

Also what was the substance of the information he was reporting back on - the social and political make-up of those he was interacting with, or just the practical plans they were making? Are there folders and folders of profiles, connections, relationships and activities between all these people? 

Is it that the eco activists are better at causing economic damage (rather than their political extremism) that made them the target of the acpo mafia?


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> How did Stone deal with them out of curiosity? Don't mean this as a loaded question or a criticism just interested.


 
Well I'll PM you with one aspect, since it involves someone else, but another thing he did was bring over two 'childhood friends' from the old days. Both dreadlocked, or at least with big hair. One called 'Ed' who looked iirc like the cowardly lion from the Wizard of Oz, and another one who I just remember as a long dark blur. They stayed the night and talked about their old times together and were very very friendly. I wonder whether they were drawn from somewhwere else in ACPO's pool of manpower, orwhether he really did convince two old friends to come and hang out with the eco-warriors. "They seem nice" I remarked to a friend as they left. "And not coppers" he replied with some relief. There was a really big suspicion over Stone in the early days as he fit teh bill of copper so neatly.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 21, 2011)

Originally Posted by The Black Hand View Post;
Its still quite surprising that they would send 15 undercover cops to spy on the movement, at a cost of approx 4 million a year, to infiltrate a small and loose 'movement'. But, they've done it and we have to move on. *Up here in the North East *we're thinking through people who've come to 'have a look at the movement' on a one (or 2) off basis, and are thinking about more deep infiltration too.



Pickman's model said:


> it's all right, your little coterie is unlikely to be infiltrated by covert cops. it's not as though your part of durham's a hotbed of anarchist activity or anything.



Which part of 'NORTH EAST' do you have trouble with understanding Pickman?  Not that I'm interested in your pathetic posts, of which this is an example. 

I hope it is clear to other people that the distribution of the plants means that it is likely that they have tried to cover most of the UK with intelligence gathering operations. 

That being the case, the NE is one area that is likely to have been looked at. 

Along with; *Cardiff*, Brighton, *Nottingham, Leeds*, London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Brum, etc... you get the drift of this observation i hope.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 23, 2011)

Random said:


> Don't take it as a personal affront. From meeting Marco I didn't see him as a genius manipulator, but maybe he was. Mark Stone never disrupted the groups I was in with him and I doubt that disruption was part of the undercover officer's mission. Info gathering via a functioning group is surely more useful than making one small group go kaput, and then having to become mates with yet another bunch of anarchists?



Dunno if he was a "genius" manipulator, but we know that he certainly was an _effective_ one. And while I see the logic of your second point, i.e it would be better to maintain a parasitic relationship and continue to suck info out of the host group, at the same time, I can't help thinking (without wanting to blow our own historical trumpet, as it were) that we were a reasonably effective little group that sort of punched above our weight, and that the state will be happy to see such bad behaviour brought to an end.

But I'm not taking it as a personal affront, just got a bit riled by the assumption of poor group dynamics.

@ Streathamite - yeah, ta for feedback. All taken on board.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jan 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If you don't mind me saying, considering all the damage ONE BLOKE did, he's either an utter genius in his way - or you were, as a group, incredibly naive and incautious. A tad gullible, as well. You need to develop SOME sort of defence mechanism against a repeat; and fully checking out 'mr loner full time activist' intensely is a good start point, next time one pops up. I do understand you don't want to succumb to raging paranoia, though.



I don't think we were "incredibly" naive, but probably naive for not contemplating that we were worthy of such state attention. We'd had discussions about potential surveillance, and individuals had suffered a lot of psychological police harassment, with FIT and uniformed officers literally following activists round for hours and hours at a time. But I think people thought they knew where it was coming from. The idea that they would send someone into our midst to live with us was not something that we had imagined. As for security, well, that's the catch-22 of the sort of group we are. We're not interested in blowing people up in supermarkets, so we've nothing to hide.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2011)

Col_Buendia said:


> I don't think we were "incredibly" naive, but probably naive for not contemplating that we were worthy of such state attention. We'd had discussions about potential surveillance, and individuals had suffered a lot of psychological police harassment, with FIT and uniformed officers literally following activists round for hours and hours at a time. But I think people thought they knew where it was coming from. The idea that they would send someone into our midst to live with us was not something that we had imagined. As for security, well, that's the catch-22 of the sort of group we are. We're not interested in blowing people up in supermarkets, so we've nothing to hide.


yeah fair enough. You have my sympathies - it can't be much fun, having your faith in just about everyone and everything shaken


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 24, 2011)

Random said:


> he fit teh bill of copper so neatly.



He fit the bill of the bill.


----------



## Giles (Jan 24, 2011)

There is apparently a demonstration taking place against undercover police officers who have sex with people while working undercover:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-protest-at-undercover-policing-2192787.html

Giles..


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2011)

The flipside of this that it would seem they've had plenty of resources to spend on this sort of activity but a distinct reluctance to do anything really meaningful (so far) about the phone-tapping debacle. I wonder why.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Originally Posted by The Black Hand View Post;
> Its still quite surprising that they would send 15 undercover cops to spy on the movement, at a cost of approx 4 million a year, to infiltrate a small and loose 'movement'. But, they've done it and we have to move on. *Up here in the North East *we're thinking through people who've come to 'have a look at the movement' on a one (or 2) off basis, and are thinking about more deep infiltration too.
> 
> 
> ...


but as i said


Pickman's model said:


> it's all right, your little coterie is unlikely to be infiltrated by covert cops. it's not as though your part of durham's a hotbed of anarchist activity or anything.


----------



## rioted (Jan 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> your little coterie is unlikely to be infiltrated by covert cops


LOL. You could hire yourself out as narkfinder general! Tosser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2011)

rioted said:


> LOL. You could hire yourself out as narkfinder general! Tosser.


yeh. i'd get paid. you, you could offer to do it for free and still get turned down. you're a useless shitfer.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 24, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> Indeed . *Theres a real danger these types might climb up a tree and play set of fucking pan pipes while wearing a funny peruvian style hat . *Hence its worth diverting police resources and budgets to watching people do that while hoodies terrorise families to the extent they burn themselves and their disabled daughters to death because theyvveno prtection from a living hell.
> 
> Meanwhile big business is law abiding .



That is very funny


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If you don't mind me saying, considering all the damage ONE BLOKE did, he's either an utter genius in his way - or you were, as a group, incredibly naive and incautious. A tad gullible, as well. You need to develop SOME sort of defence mechanism against a repeat; and fully checking out 'mr loner full time activist' intensely is a good start point, next time one pops up. I do understand you don't want to succumb to raging paranoia, though.



Good post , many of us are concerned with anarchists and swampy types tendency to sleep with police.


----------



## chazegee (Jan 24, 2011)

Is anyone thinking legal action?


----------



## treelover (Jan 24, 2011)

Sleaze is good...


----------



## rioted (Jan 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. i'd get paid. you, you could offer to do it for free and still get turned down. you're a useless shitfer.


I have no trouble realising my limitations. I didn't sus him. I hold my hands up. You never met him, but know immediately that obviously he was a nark. Thankyou for your input. Very useful.


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 24, 2011)

fitwatch said:
			
		

> His accent is said to be Derby



Says it all really


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2011)

rioted said:


> I have no trouble realising my limitations. I didn't sus him. I hold my hands up. You never met him, but know immediately that obviously he was a nark. Thankyou for your input. Very useful.


 
could you confine yourself to what's been said on this thread rather than bringing in your own fuckwitted fantasies of what you think's been said?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2011)

Make some money from the papers. I shagged marco/stone. They'll buy it. Anyone up for it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Make some money from the papers. I shagged marco/stone. They'll buy it. Anyone up for it?


 
a foursome with that woman out of the clown army too?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Make some money from the papers. I shagged marco/stone. They'll buy it. Anyone up for it?



Where's Tax?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where's Tax?


 
probably demonstrating to max clifford just what these undercover plod did to him in the course of their intelligence gathering while waiting for news international to ring back


----------



## little_legs (Jan 24, 2011)

Source: Evening Standard, Jan. 24, 2011


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 24, 2011)

Very good


----------



## Isambard (Jan 24, 2011)

newbie said:


> you've read Stasiland as well?



Just been a very similar case in Germany about undercover police ifiltrating groups and pretending to be friends etc.
Also involving protests around energy and major constructions projects.


If you can read ethnic:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere...rsaal-ausspioniert-vom-kommilitonen-1.1048222


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Source: Evening Standard, Jan. 24, 2011


 
brilliant.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Source: Evening Standard, Jan. 24, 2011



Ace.


----------



## Giles (Jan 24, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Source: Evening Standard, Jan. 24, 2011


 
Funny, but are they seriously protesting that .... what, some bloke bullshitted a couple of girls and thus they shagged him, whereas if he had said he was a cop, they wouldn't have done so?

If they make it a general law that you can't lie to people to get them into bed, where will it end?

Giles..


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 24, 2011)

It would probably end your love life Giles


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 24, 2011)

pwnt


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2011)

at 

Glies

Have a little think about it, giles. 

Well done those two in that photo. The laughs say it all. Ridicule is a powerful way to protest, if done well. And that was done well.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Ta to sh75



> A month after the protest Commander Bob Broadhurst claimed no plain clothes officers were deployed in the crowd.
> 
> Scotland Yard has now admitted covert officers were used.



...


> Commander Broadhurst was so-called 'gold commander' of the police operation on the day.
> 
> He told the latest hearing: "I first of all apologise. When I appeared before you I gave you information that appears to be inaccurate.
> 
> "At the time it was true to the best of my knowledge."



When he says appears means 'was and when he says true he means 'lie'. At the time it was true. Now it's not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

> He added that the use of covert officers on large operations was "not an exception at all".



...


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm looking forward to footage of Lynn clowning about at the tax payers expense.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 25, 2011)

I notice that the filmmaker behind the CIRCA clown video featuring undercover copper 'Lynn Watson' and shown on Channel 4 News tonight is linked to Bristol's own Mark Watson, AKA Zaskar, himself no stranger to working with the police. (He edited the footage.)


----------



## laptop (Jan 25, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I notice that the filmmaker behind the CIRCA clown video featuring undercover copper 'Lynn Watson' and shown on Channel 4 News tonight is linked to Bristol's own Mark Watson, AKA Zaskar, himself no stranger to working with the police. (He edited the footage.)


 
TBF, that was in 2004 - had Watson gone mad already then? Was he a decent editor? 

I know Zoe Young, and she's not likely a cop. In fact it'd be a bloody stupid police force that tried to recruit her... oh 

By the "linked with" standard, I'm "linked with" sociobiologist Edward O Wilson, 'cos I've edited him (writing about something else)... to name but one.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 26, 2011)

laptop said:


> By the "linked with" standard, I'm "linked with" sociobiologist Edward O Wilson, 'cos I've edited him (writing about something else)... to name but one.



at it again I see--the usual cracked record defending the dodgy from laptroll...


----------



## pk (Jan 26, 2011)

Larry O'Hara said:


> at it again I see--the usual cracked record defending the dodgy from laptroll...


 
Come on, there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest zaskar was involved in undercover cop ops.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 26, 2011)

Giles said:


> Funny, but are they seriously protesting that .... what, some bloke bullshitted a couple of girls and thus they shagged him, whereas if he had said he was a cop, they wouldn't have done so?



Guys spin women a yarn to get them into bed all the time. The difference here though is that telling them you're a racing driver over a couple of cocktails isn't the same as behaving that way in a professional capacity whilst in the pay of the state.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2011)

...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

I'll be interested to see if that female undercover cop shagged any blokes, and if they'll be camping outside NSY protesting about it...


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I'll be interested to see if that female undercover cop shagged any blokes, and if they'll be camping outside NSY protesting about it...


 
She did - and I'm quite pissed off that the media (and some activists, tbf) have only made a big deal out of the male ones shagging around. As if the men she deceived couldn't possibly be bothered about it.


----------



## laptop (Jan 26, 2011)

I wasn't talking to or about you, O'Hara.

Anyone under the misapprehension that I have defended zaskar should take a look at the actual content of who said what when he outed himself as a deranged little snitch - in 2006, was it? 

PS: Larry O'Hara is linked to the Metropolitan Police. By his own standards, this is unarguable: anyone who argues that the fact that he posts on the same bulletin board as past and serving senior police demonstrates nothing is clearly themselves an agent of the state.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> but as i said


 fek all. Again and again and again.... 

You haven't got a clue as per...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 26, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Guys spin women a yarn to get them into bed all the time.



....and so do women.....and keep up some lies to get them into a relationship.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 26, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> ....and so do women.....and keep up some lies to get them into a relationship.


 
But I'm not bitter


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 26, 2011)

Statement from the ActivistSecurity.org collective following discussions with individuals involved in the expose of 'Lynn Watson' as an undercover police infiltrator


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 26, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> ....and so do women.....and keep up some lies to get them into a relationship.


 
Well quite. And so do black, brown and yellow people and those who are sky-blue pink with yellow dots and folk with physical or learning disabilities and lesbians and the sorts who like dogging.

But are we required to add a politically correct disclaimer to the end of each of our posts?

Also 'guys' isn't gender specific in every context.


----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2011)

German parliament wades in...



> The international row over undercover police officer Mark Kennedy escalated tonight after the full scope of his activities were revealed in a secret sitting at the German parliament.
> 
> Germany's federal police chief, Jörg Ziercke, was forced to admit to MPs at the Bundestag that not only had Kennedy had a long-term lover in Berlin – in direct violation of a law forbidding police officers to have sexual relationships while undercover – but that he had been invited to Germany by the authorities to infiltrate the anti-fascist movement.
> 
> ...


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 27, 2011)

Confirmation of his activities in Germany. This is going to run for months

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/mark-kennedy-german-bundestag


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 27, 2011)

curse you laptop ha


----------



## JWH (Jan 27, 2011)

Giles said:


> If they make it a general law that you can't lie to people to get them into bed, where will it end?


 
Dunno. How informed do you think consent should be?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 27, 2011)

"Look, before we do this, I have to make you aware that I'm a traffic warden and are you cool about it?"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 27, 2011)




----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2011)

JWH said:


> Dunno. How informed do you think consent should be?


 
That would be on a sliding scale, dependent on the nature of the lie?

And, for that matter, of the laid - most I know would run a mile from anyone who claimed to be 67th in line to the throne, but in other circles it'd be a pull. I guess.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 27, 2011)

laptop said:


> That would be on a sliding scale, dependent on the nature of the lie?
> 
> And, for that matter, of the laid - most I know would run a mile from anyone who claimed to be 67th in line to the throne, but in other circles it'd be a pull. I guess.


you've used that line too then?


----------



## pk (Jan 27, 2011)

Of course in modern parlance, throne usually means 'toilet'.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 30, 2011)

laptop said:


> PS: Larry O'Hara is linked to the Metropolitan Police. By his own standards, this is unarguable: anyone who argues that the fact that he posts on the same bulletin board as past and serving senior police demonstrates nothing is clearly themselves an agent of the state.[/size]


 

more typical laptroll


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 2, 2011)

laptop said:


> German parliament wades in...


 


gawkrodger said:


> Confirmation of his activities in Germany. This is going to run for months
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/mark-kennedy-german-bundestag


 
Yeah, serious shit and lots of issues.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2011)

No infiltration in the North east?


----------



## PlaidDragon (Feb 2, 2011)

If I ever found out one of my mates was an undercover, I'd tear their fucking head off.
Luckily, I'm hardly Ronnie bloody Kray, so I doubt it!


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 26, 2011)

*The absolute fucker*

mark stoneddey appears to be appearing in this weekend's guardian magazine. Allegedly one of his conditions to consenting to be interviewed was that a camera crew got to film the whole thing to be used as part of a documentary being made about him


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 26, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> mark stoneddey appears to be appearing in this weekend's guardian magazine. Allegedly one of his conditions to consenting to be interviewed was that a camera crew got to film the whole thing to be used as part of a documentary being made about him


 
Celebrity status beckons. Won't be long now before he's appearing in Hello Hello Hello magazine.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 26, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Celebrity status beckons. Won't be long now before he's appearing in Hello Hello Hello magazine.


----------



## laptop (Jun 9, 2011)

It's getting better:



> *Mark Kennedy case: independent inquiry ordered over CPS claims*
> 
> CPS stands accused of misleading courts over the collapse of a trial against six environmental activists
> 
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2011)

I don't know what troubles me most, the scale of the clusterfuck or the incompetence with which it was carried out. What we are getting a rare glimpse of here is a system so at ease with the idea of stitching people up and getting away with it that they don't even bother trying to cover their tracks when they do it. 

How easy is it for prosecutors to withold evidence from defendants in a case where there's no press interest or where an informant's cover has not been blown? I suspect it would be hard to answer that question without using the word 'very' at least four times.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Won't be long now before he's appearing in Hell.


 
Corrected.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 10, 2011)

CPS are accused of not only misleading the court, but also the public. Twenty activists have already been prosecuted and convicted. What will happen with these convictions? 

Newsnight piece.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

he's due on radio five now. with a 'debate on the issues' after he buggers off, at eleven


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> he's due on radio five now. with a 'debate on the issues' after he buggers off, at eleven


 
Let us know what he says, please.


----------



## laptop (Jun 15, 2011)

audiotech said:


> What will happen with these convictions?



The DPP, no less, invited them to appeal, didn't he?


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

he's backtracking already on his previous comments about protestors (now they're all intelligent and resourceful and stuff, opposed to hapless and covered in nits a couple of months ago)


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

oooh i'm going to have to have a cup of tea to calm down.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

'the lies you tell when you first start are the lies you have to tell all the way through'.. he's also referring to 'mark stone' in the third person. repeatedly. and now just 'mark'.

doesn't think he ever slipped up (no? ask the woman (a 'really amazing person' that 'meant a great deal' to him. so much so that he fucked her over) that found his passport. and his wife), and that he was only lying because it was what his job entailed...

fuckery.

i'll see if i can dig out a link to this on iplayer


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> doesn't think he ever slipped up (no? ask the woman (a 'really amazing person' that 'meant a great deal' to him. so much so that he fucked her over) that found his passport. and his wife), and that he was only lying because it was what his job entailed...



And what a job! Hopefully he's going to be horribly mentally scarred for life.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

Random said:


> And what a job! Hopefully he's going to be horribly mentally scarred for life.


 
i think he already is. he sounds like a few different people all arguing with himself.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

denying being an agent provocateur as well..


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

tackling the issue of 'informed consent' and 'state sanctioned abuse' re his 'relationships' - that's 'upsetting', apparently, that they might think that.

he's also made the top of 5's news stories with his 'revelations', on their half ten bulletin.

sorry to be a bit ranty, i absolutely hate this man. and am on the coffee  now


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

text any questions for him to 85058


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 15, 2011)

jaysus.... what a scumbag.....


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

he can't comment on whether he has any confidence into the DPP enquiry


----------



## krink (Jun 15, 2011)

he can't answer anything! what a self-pitying tosser.


----------



## krink (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't get what they are hinting at with the 26 charged out 100-odd who were arrested. My initial thought (knowing very little about the case) was maybe the 26 charged didn't stick with 'no comment'?


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

see the deniers/justifiers bit in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...nedy-case-independent-inquiry-cps?INTCMP=SRCH

kennedy also ended up being arrested initially - iirc, he wasn't charged...


----------



## krink (Jun 15, 2011)

thanks tufty79 that makes it clearer.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> tackling the issue of 'informed consent' and 'state sanctioned abuse' re his 'relationships' - that's 'upsetting', apparently, that they might think that.


 He's certainly a violator, if not technically a rapist. Anyway, I must remember that the best revenge is living well...


----------



## Zabo (Jun 15, 2011)

Heard it. Notice all the hesitancy and faux lip quivering? Has one caller said: He deserves an Oscar. A liar is a liar and always will be. A cunt is a cunt and always will be. He's a lying cunt and can never can a word of his ever be trusted. It should be played to every growing child to remind them what granddad says about never trusting the filth. *NEVER!*

It was disturbing to hear him say they (National Public Order Intelligence Unit) were also engaged with the anti-war movement. So that's where the redundant Stasi got jobs?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2011)

> *Undercover – the book and the blog
> *
> _Paul Lewis and Rob Evans are working on a book on undercover police officer Mark Kennedy and police surveillance – and they want your help_
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/underc.../2011/jul/20/undercover-the-book-and-the-blog


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2011)

Police accused of allowing undercover officers to lie in court



> Police chiefs are facing damaging allegations that they authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status.
> 
> Documents seen by the Guardian suggest that an undercover officer concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside a group of protesters for occupying a government office during a demonstration.
> 
> From the moment he was arrested, he gave a false name and occupation, maintaining this fiction throughout the entire prosecution, even when he gave evidence under oath to barristers. The officer, Jim Boyling, and his police handlers never revealed to the activists who stood alongside him in court that he was actually an undercover policeman who had penetrated their campaign months earlier under a fake identity.





> Police chiefs authorised their spies to be prosecuted only for offences that fell short of a jail sentence, according to Black. If a police spy was in danger of being locked up, prosecutions of the officer and the other activists would be "mysteriously dropped", he said.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2011)

Was just reading that and came here to see if it had been mentioned. Ooh thats taken things to a new level, I await the fallout with much interest.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2011)

Its gonna be on Newsnight tonight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15372037


> Mike Schwarz of law firm Bindmans told Newsnight: "It's institutionalised police corruption of the legal process for this to happen."
> He said the case "raises the most fundamental constitutional issues about the limits of acceptable policing, the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality and the integrity of the criminal justice system."


----------



## ddraig (Oct 19, 2011)

big up Mike Schwarz for looking it up!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2011)

elbows said:


> Was just reading that and came here to see if it had been mentioned. Ooh thats taken things to a new level, I await the fallout with much interest.


yeh it will be like one of those old-time train crashes


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 20, 2011)

The HMIC has postponed its report on police infiltrators/provocateurs, which was due out today, due to the lying-on-oath shenanigans:



> *Publication of ‘Undercover Tactics in Public Order and Extremism’*
> Our report, Undercover Tactics in Public Order and Extremism, was due to be published on Thursday 20 October. However, in light of the allegations in the media today, we are delaying this launch. This is so we can consider the relevance of this information to the recommendations for improvement in undercover policing tactics that we are making in our review.
> We will be writing to the Guardian and Newsnight to invite them to provide any additional information they may have on top of that published today.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 20, 2011)

Lying on oath and being part of the prosecution and defence at the same time; it's very corrupt and very dangerous. I wonder who knew?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 20, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Lying on oath and being part of the prosecution and defence at the same time; it's very corrupt and very dangerous. I wonder who knew?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Hmmm, I suspect that this is likely to be standard for undercover ops. Afterall, not to _ever_ be arrested would raise suspicion, while to have a record adds to credibility, quite apart from the advantage gained for immediate prosecution. However as I understand it, the procedure is limited to only copping (excuse pun) to the type of charges that could not end in a custodial sentence. Which incidentally, would exclude almost all militant anti-fascist activity. Odd too that the media continue to insist that one of the principle focus for undercover plod was 'anti-racist groups', who are in the main non-violent. If its not just lazy journalism, using it as a catch all term, it sort of makes you wonder, what agency had the responsibility for AFA/ RA etc


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Hmmm, I suspect that this is likely to be standard for undercover ops. Afterall, not to _ever_ be arrested would raise suspicion, while to have a record adds to credibility, quite apart from the advantage gained for immediate prosecution. However as I understand it, the procedure is limited to only copping (excuse pun) to the type of charges that could not end in a custodial sentence. Which incidentally, would exclude almost all militant anti-fascist activity. Odd too that the media continue to insist that one of the principle focus for undercover plod was 'anti-racist groups', who are in the main non-violent. If its not just lazy journalism, using it as a catch all term, it sort of makes you wonder, what agency had the responsibility for AFA/ RA etc



Whether it would be "normal" or not for undercover plod to occasionally get nicked and prosecuted to save a bit of face - which I don't see the courts liking at all, what with them being lied to by police - there is simply no excuse to go undercover as a defendant in a trial with the people he is supposed to be investigating, finding out the confidential details of the defences case. He could just as easily have pleaded guilty, used a different solicitor and not thus been responsible for so drastically undermining the safety of any convictions which came out of the case, and also undermining whatever legal principles entitle anyone accused of a crime to confidentiality between them and their advocate.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Whether it would be "normal" or not for undercover plod to occasionally get nicked and prosecuted to save a bit of face - which I don't see the courts liking at all, what with them being lied to by police - there is simply no excuse to go undercover as a defendant in a trial with the people he is supposed to be investigating, finding out the confidential details of the defences case. He could just as easily have pleaded guilty, used a different solicitor and not thus been responsible for so drastically undermining the safety of any convictions which came out of the case, and also undermining whatever legal principles entitle anyone accused of a crime to confidentiality between them and their advocate.


They don't work by them rules.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 20, 2011)

clearly, but it just seems totally beyond comprehension as to why they allowed one of their officers to plead "not guilty" in this case.  It's not as if any useful information could have been gained from sitting in on these confidential meetings with Bindmans - would he have passed the info onto the CPS and given them an advantage in court?  Would he have expected have to have gained extra intel about the activist activities that he was already deeply involved in?  No, in both cases, I suspect.

So why do it?  I just don't see a reasonable explanation.  The activities of the undercovers which have  come to light up until this point have been reprehensible but understandable.  This is downright bizarre.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> clearly, but it just seems totally beyond comprehension as to why they allowed one of their officers to plead "not guilty" in this case. It's not as if any useful information could have been gained from sitting in on these confidential meetings with Bindmans - would he have passed the info onto the CPS and given them an advantage in court? Would he have expected have to have gained extra intel about the activist activities that he was already deeply involved in? No, in both cases, I suspect.
> 
> So why do it? I just don't see a reasonable explanation. The activities of the undercovers which have come to light up until this point have been reprehensible but understandable. This is downright bizarre.


Getting used to the situation, lazyness, not seeing it as a problem anymore, massive corruption and collusion with the judiciary...


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2011)

because they have got away with it and think they can?
e2a to Jon


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Police accused of allowing undercover officers to lie in court


i can't believe that there isn't more of an uproar about such blatant abuse of power as has happened here. tbh. lying under oath, whilst employed as an agent of the state. and they wonder why people don't accept their justice?


----------



## laptop (Oct 21, 2011)

An' another one accused of standing trial under his alias: Bob Lambert, a.k.a. Bob Robinson:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/underc...d-undercover-officer-accused-misleading-court


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 22, 2011)

I'm confused.  Is he or isn't he the same Bob Lambert mentioned in this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/16/academic-bob-lambert-former-police-spy?newsfeed=true
who has subsequently written for the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/police-counter-subversion-extremism
In the second article he doesn't admit or deny the accusation.
If so, his current activity with muslim groups is cast in a new light.


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 22, 2011)

I also noticed that Annie Machon is taking the moral high ground on this.  Which is ironic given that she made a living doing the same thing for the security services:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/oct/21/police-infiltrate-protest-groups


----------



## laptop (Oct 22, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> I'm confused. Is he or isn't he the same Bob Lambert mentioned in this article:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/16/academic-bob-lambert-former-police-spy?newsfeed=true
> who has subsequently written for the Guardian:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/police-counter-subversion-extremism
> In the second article he doesn't admit or deny the accusation.



Appears to be the same:



> I cannot respond here to the Guardian's report this week on my alleged undercover policing role for special branch.





eoin_k said:


> If so, his current activity with muslim groups is cast in a new light.



Among other things...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 9, 2011)

Poor old Mark, those beastly Danes have made him feel unwelcome so he won't be visiting the Copenhagen film festival where his forthcoming documentary was going to be screened:

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national...py-cancels-visit-to-documentary-festival.html


----------



## free spirit (Nov 9, 2011)

good. Fucking prick.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Nov 9, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> I also noticed that Annie Machon is taking the moral high ground on this. Which is ironic given that she made a living doing the same thing for the security services:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/oct/21/police-infiltrate-protest-groups



The fact that she's a whistleblower, left MI5 in disgust and has been campaigning against injustice for years has been lost on you then?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 9, 2011)

Most people I have any respect for have been fairly cynical about her and David's motives for hanging around the fringes of the left spouting conspiraloon nonsense while failing to reveal anything substantive about who had been infiltrating various social movements over the last few decades.  For whistleblowers, they seemed to hold back an awful lot of detail.  Who, what, when?


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 9, 2011)

9.00pm next Monday, C4 are doing an hour doc on/with him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> The fact that she's a whistleblower, left MI5 in disgust and has been campaigning against injustice for years has been lost on you then?


can we please fucking lose this nonsense about annie machon leaving mi5 in disgust? fucking shayler and machon's problem with mi5 was that it wasn't efficient enough, nothing to do with a fucking conscience or being a bloody whistleblower. btw, she didn't even write her own book, it was shayler.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2011)

frogwoman - i don't understand why you like anudder oik's nonsense


----------



## Anudder Oik (Nov 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> can we please fucking lose this nonsense about annie machon leaving mi5 in disgust? fucking shayler and machon's problem with mi5 was that it wasn't efficient enough, nothing to do with a fucking conscience or being a bloody whistleblower. btw, she didn't even write her own book, it was shayler.



That's why she supports investigative journalism? One look at her website gives a completely different version to what you are saying here.

Take this title of an article she wrote, as an example of where she stands:

*The UK Spies: Ineffective, Unethical and Unaccountable*

The reason she gives for leaving MI5 is because they knew about a Mossad bomb explosion in London but did nothing about it, which amounts to collusion. According to her, innocent pro Palestine campaigners were jailed for the Mossad bomb. Her conscience couldn't handle it.

Can you post a link to somewhere that proves otherwise because there seems to be a mass of evidence to the contrary on her website?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&hl=en&v=sTtStXDk8XI (and subsequent parts)




> Discussing security matters in 2003, Shayler maintained his standard line, consistent with his submission to the Cabinet Office review of the security services, arguing MI5 is "too wedded to the past and the bureaucracy is still too rigid and cumbersome"  *[10].*


http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=219:machon-shayler-911-campaigners&catid=25:cult-watching&Itemid=134

what you're saying, anudder oik, is that machon left mi5 because her conscience couldn't handle it while shayler left mi5 because it wasn't efficient enough. can you square that particular circle?


----------



## krink (Nov 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> 9.00pm next Monday, C4 are doing an hour doc on/with him.



Do you know if this is the documentary that has been previewed in a few places already or is it a new piece?


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 10, 2011)

It's the same doc as shown at copenhagen..


----------



## jesuscrept (Nov 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cunt even looks like bono



Aphex Twin is an undercover copper


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2011)

if i was feeling unkind i'd say anudder oik's done a runner


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 10, 2011)

The makers of this documentary were sniffing round the Nottingham activist scene for a while, trying to get people to do interviews. Naturally everybody told them to go fuck themselves.

The cunt shouldn't be making money selling his story, he should be rotting in a prison cell like the multiple rapist he is.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 13, 2011)

and more

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...over-policeman-admits-spying-danish-activists

complete with his now standard sob story at the end


----------



## ddraig (Nov 13, 2011)

boo fuckin hoo
woora cunt


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 14, 2011)

got the recorder set for 9PM tonight

(No pun intended!)


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 14, 2011)

i'm stockpiling (soft) things to throw at the telly ..


----------



## Kidda (Nov 14, 2011)

*bump* 

It's on it just over an hour.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2011)

*elbow*

t-minus 5 mins


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2011)

Who made this program?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2011)

Century Films.

There's a Q&A with him after the broadcast

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/.../live-qa-with-mark-kennedy-10pm-monday-14-nov


----------



## IC3D (Nov 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who made this program?


http://www.centuryfilmsltd.com/documentary.htm


----------



## kenny g (Nov 14, 2011)

He came across as a shit.


----------



## rekil (Nov 14, 2011)

Still moaning on the Q&A. What a crybaby. Unless he's still lying.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 14, 2011)

Trev has not so thoughtfully started a thread in the tv forum:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/undercover-cop-tonight-ch4-9pm.284193/#post-10638810


----------



## mr steev (Nov 14, 2011)

What a cunt


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2011)

*Comment From Phil*​You were very brave to make this programme - can't have been easy to 'expose' yourself again to the media and the often unsympathetic public. Has the process been therapeautic in any way?​
*MARK KENNEDY:*​This process has been hugely carthartic, i would not be doing this Q&A today if it was not for Brian Hill and James Ross sitting me down and letting me cry and share for weeks on end. I thank them for their help. What they did was their work and independent i merely contributed and it saved me.​
This is a good one.

*Comment From ben*
You lied to everyone, your friends, lovers, wife, and your bosses - why should anyone take what you have to say now with anything other than a very large pinch of salt?​
*Waits with interest for reply*

*Channel 4 Community Manager:*​Sorry we have a short delay, Mark is answering Ben's question and it will be published very soon.​
*MARK KENNEDY:*
I appreciate the comment, its very hard to know how to answer that, there are many people out there who know what i was to them and how i was to them........Those that know....know and the rest you will have to make your own minds up upon what you see and read.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/.../live-qa-with-mark-kennedy-10pm-monday-14-nov


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 14, 2011)

mr steev said:


> What a cunt



trev?


----------



## newbie (Nov 14, 2011)

It's the only critical comment to have got through the moderation though.

I presume I'm not the only person to have said something less than complimentary and been ignored.


----------



## mr steev (Nov 14, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> trev?



lol... poor post timing


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 14, 2011)

is it worth me downloading this?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2011)

It's on 4OD now

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/confessions-of-an-undercover-cop/4od


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2011)

gawkrodger said:


> is it worth me downloading this?


it's moderately entertaining


----------



## kenny g (Nov 14, 2011)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485380.html different set of photos than the bullshit persona he is  trying to adopt.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 14, 2011)

Snivelling cunt.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 14, 2011)

kenny g said:


> He came across as a shit.


that's because he's a double dealing cunt who deserves zero pity and even less empathy.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 14, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Snivelling cunt.



well there's a picture. Certainly a dick.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 14, 2011)

So I'm the only person who empathised with him just a little bit?
The ethics of such infiltration aside, did you not think how bloody miserable his life will be now with no family, no community, no job, no loyalties and no real self worth...
I suppose people will say he deserves it, and maybe he does, i just felt a bit sorry for him.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2011)

kenny g said:


> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485380.html different set of photos than the bullshit persona he is trying to adopt.



That looks dodgy?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> So I'm the only person who empathised with him just a little bit?
> The ethics of such infiltration aside, did you not think how bloody miserable his life will be now with no family, no community, no job, no loyalties and no real self worth...
> I suppose people will say he deserves it, and maybe he does, i just felt a bit sorry for him.



From a psychological point of view, yes I can see how difficult his position was/is.  Do I feel sorry for him?  No.  He chose to do this.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 14, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> So I'm the only person who empathised with him just a little bit?
> The ethics of such infiltration aside, did you not think how bloody miserable his life will be now with no family, no community, no job, no loyalties and no real self worth...
> I suppose people will say he deserves it, and maybe he does, i just felt a bit sorry for him.


i think the phrase is "you make your bed and you lie in it", this fucking shit has destroyed many peoples' lives and has undermined the ability of many more to peacefully protest about important things. i'm not a bitter person but this fuck can go to hell basically, he's the worst kind of turncoat that you can experience and unless you've had your trust betrayed to such a level, you probably won't understand why he attracts such levels of loathing.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2011)

It wasn't exactly the best documentary ever to be shown on C4.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> So I'm the only person who empathised with him just a little bit?
> The ethics of such infiltration aside, did you not think how bloody miserable his life will be now with no family, no community, no job, no loyalties and no real self worth...
> I suppose people will say he deserves it, and maybe he does, i just felt a bit sorry for him.



I think that what he did was pretty awful, and at the same time feel a bit sorry for him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 14, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I think that what he did was pretty awful, and at the same time feel a bit sorry for him.


bleeding liberal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i think the phrase is "you make your bed and you lie in it", this fucking shit has destroyed many peoples' lives and has undermined the ability of many more to peacefully protest about important things. i'm not a bitter person but this fuck can go to hell basically, he's the worst kind of turncoat that you can experience and unless you've had your trust betrayed to such a level, you probably won't understand why he attracts such levels of loathing.


he's not the worst kind of turncoat. that's someone who doesn't do it as a job - not the raymond gilmours of this world, but the eamon collinses.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 14, 2011)

It was 60-minutes specifally designed to make you want to sympathise/empathise with him. It really suited his cause that no others took part.

Fwiw, I tend to sympathise/empathise most with the woman who thought she was in love with the activist and nice guy Mark Stone.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 14, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I think that what he did was pretty awful, and at the same time feel a bit sorry for him.


Yes, it's not the most honest profession but i'm less dogmatic in my judgement. For example I can imagine of some instances where undercover police are really very useful. In these circumstances however, where there is not threat to life or security then I don't believe the paractise is justifiable.

My qualm with his conduct is that at some point, the point where he questioned the morality/ethics of his role in this and the point where he knowingly abused the trust of the woman he got involved with, he could have stopped. But he didnt. And he didnt stop until he was cast out by the police and found out by the others.
He didnt act with integrity and i feel sorry for him because he made a mistake when he lost sight of that, he can't even walk away thinking he did a Good Job or he did a Good Thing.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It was 60-minutes specifally designed to make you want to sympathise/empathise with him. It really suited his cause that no others took part.


Undoubtedly so. Even when you allow for that bias it's still a shitty place to find one's self.



> Fwiw, I tend to sympathise/empathise most with the woman who thought she was in love with the activist and nice guy Mark Stone.


Oh, absolutely. I think that was probably the worst of his betrayals.

I'll admit that I was only half watching and I missed the first half almost entirely so I'm not fully aware of how many people he incriminated and the consequences for them but i'd imagine that woman found herself in a really difficult place.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Undoubtedly so. Even when you allow for that bias it's still a shitty place to find one's self.
> 
> Oh, absolutely. I think that was probably the worst of his betrayals.
> 
> I'll admit that I was only half watching and I missed the first half almost entirely so I'm not fully aware of how many people he incriminated and the consequences for them but i'd imagine that woman found herself in a really difficult place.



I don't know any more than what Ive read, but being in love with someone who you then find out isn't the person you thought they were, that they were betraying you all along - that could really cause all sorts of horrible emotions, none of which would be that persons fault.  Heartbreak, combined with feelings of mistrust, anger, self-blame (I'm guessing here, obviously), and all the while the person who did it is having attention-&-pity seeking documentaries made about him (presumably for cash...), not letting her move on with her life.  He acted like a selfish cunt throughout his time undercover, and he's acting like even more of a selfish cunt now.  Fuck him.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 15, 2011)

ACAB specially this one
i will reiterate my point earlier. worra cunt, boohoo
watching it now on 4od and he is blubbing ffs 
proper wanna be movie star too, he LOVES it, so full of shit
fair play to the Danes for telling him he ain't welcome there after fucking them over


----------



## ddraig (Nov 15, 2011)

and that is without the cheating and the ewwww and the lying and the 'only doing my job' etc
puke


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Yes, it's not the most honest profession but i'm less dogmatic in my judgement. For example I can imagine of some instances where undercover police are really very useful. In these circumstances however, where there is not threat to life or security then I don't believe the paractise is justifiable.
> 
> My qualm with his conduct is that at some point, the point where he questioned the morality/ethics of his role in this and the point where he knowingly abused the trust of the woman he got involved with, he could have stopped. But he didnt. And he didnt stop until he was cast out by the police and found out by the others.
> He didnt act with integrity and i feel sorry for him because he made a mistake when he lost sight of that, he can't even walk away thinking he did a Good Job or he did a Good Thing.



I don't have a dogmatic objection to police going undercover; I can see that sometimes it is justified. What I find odd about him is that he seems to have been aware of many instances where the police response was totally out of proportion, and yet he kept on doing it. Particularly strange was the bit where (assuming of course that what he related was accurate and I realise it might not have been) he was trying to stop the police beating up another protester and they ended up beating him up and dislocating his spine and so on... you'd think that would make him question what he was doing and what he was part of.

With regards to the woman of course he didn't do the right thing. Lots of people don't do the right thing when it comes to romantic relationships. He did bad things, maybe he's a bad person but that doesn't stop me having some degree of empathy for him. I'm a disgraceful bleeding liberal because I'm not capable of seeing these things from a binary good/bad point of view.

Anyway what I'm saying is I agree with you.


----------



## grit (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> So I'm the only person who empathised with him just a little bit?
> The ethics of such infiltration aside, did you not think how bloody miserable his life will be now with no family, no community, no job, no loyalties and no real self worth...
> I suppose people will say he deserves it, and maybe he does, i just felt a bit sorry for him.



I did, to an extent, he has lost a lot. However it doesn't seem feasible to accept any of his remorse, he had those concious decisions every step of the way. I think he is most annoyed of the fact, how the cops just threw him out on the street after he had outlived his usefullness.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2011)

ddraig said:


> ACAB specially this one
> i will reiterate my point earlier. worra cunt, boohoo
> watching it now on 4od and he is blubbing ffs
> proper wanna be movie star too, he LOVES it, so full of shit
> fair play to the Danes for telling him he ain't welcome there after fucking them over



The bile would be more productively directed at the systems within the police that allowed all this to happen.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I don't have a dogmatic objection to police going undercover; I can see that sometimes it is justified. What I find odd about him is that he seems to have been aware of many instances where the police response was totally out of proportion, and yet he kept on doing it. Particularly strange was the bit where (assuming of course that what he related was accurate and I realise it might not have been) he was trying to stop the police beating up another protester and they ended up beating him up and dislocating his spine and so on... you'd think that would make him question what he was doing and what he was part of.
> 
> With regards to the woman of course he didn't do the right thing. Lots of people don't do the right thing when it comes to romantic relationships. He did bad things, maybe he's a bad person but that doesn't stop me having some degree of empathy for him. I'm a disgraceful bleeding liberal because I'm not capable of seeing these things from a binary good/bad point of view.
> 
> Anyway what I'm saying is I agree with you.


imagine if the person closest to you, someone you've trusted implicitly with your deepest secrets, suddenly turns out to have been blatantly cheating on you.

oh, hang on, you already have by noting his abuse of a woman under the guise of his undercover identity, when in fact to him it was merely something useful to collect information and embed himself (is that how they put it?) in the "friends" that he was propogating in groups in this country and also across europe apparently.

nope, sorry, still not feeling sorry for the fucker. if he's intelligent, he knew what he did was wrong, if he wasn't intelligent, he wouldn't have got away with it for so long.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 15, 2011)

teuchter said:


> The bile would be more productively directed at the systems within the police that allowed all this to happen.


why not both? 
did you hear the last bit, not one person got charged in his whole 7 years!
thank fuck but what a waste of millions


----------



## grit (Nov 15, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> nope, sorry, still not feeling sorry for the fucker. if he's intelligent, he knew what he did was wrong, if he wasn't intelligent, he wouldn't have got away with it for so long.



No one can question the mans intelligence.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2011)

One of the things that has struck me about the whole affair is the way that the Police have used one of their own and then spat him out.  Are there any stories of people living double lives for that long without being psychologically damaged.  I haven't got a problem with admitting to empathising with him insofar as I think that he might have come out of it more damaged than anyone else.  Doesn't sound like he has learned anything from the experience though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

well that is maybe where a small shred of sympathy may emerge for a scintilla of a second, him thinking that the cops would be in any way interested in his long term welfare or wellbeing.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 15, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> One of the things that has struck me about the whole affair is the way that the Police have used one of their own and then spat him out.


Yes, that struck a cautionary note. Doesn't it illustrate how even experienced and long serving employees are just a means to an end and aren't the machinations of these operations of more importance than the agents of them? in that case, the vitriol would be best directed at the comissioning powers. In my view at least. I see why people get very angry about it, they are willing particpants after all.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

damn you SBL and your tricky arguments!!!


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> ... the vitriol would be best directed at the comissioning powers...


  No.  He deserves vitriol and more.  I was just admitting that I thought 'poor bastard' occasionally.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i think the phrase is "you make your bed and you lie in it", this fucking shit has destroyed many peoples' lives and has undermined the ability of many more to peacefully protest about important things. i'm not a bitter person but this fuck can go to hell basically, he's the worst kind of turncoat that you can experience and unless you've had your trust betrayed to such a level, you probably won't understand why he attracts such levels of loathing.


innit.

glad I watched it, helped me make a little more sense of some of the stuff that went on around the G8.

One bit of it sparked some memories when it showed footage of a bar we'd all been drinking in up in glasgow at one of the planning meets, having a chat with one of the key people who was certain they'd been infiltrated. I wish I could remember it all properly, but I'm sure they id'd Mark at that point but had no proof, but he was then kept a lot more out of things that he'd previously been - off driving minibuses to pick up people from the courts etc instead of being at the heart of things. This was after the police finding out about and warning off different landowners who'd been approached to allow the camp on their land, info that could only have come from an inside leak.

I also remember mark getting oddly defensive on a couple of occasions up there, but really didn't know the guy so stupidly just put it down to me being paranoid or something. First time was at the glasgow meeting while having a drink afterwards, when I was querying why the FIT teams were nowhere to be seen, as I'd have expected them to have been camped out on the doorstep photographing us all, and probably have the place bugged or something. I'm sure it was Mark making out I was just being paranoid etc. 2nd time was at the camp, where he came and sat next to me at one point, which was a little odd as I didn't know him at all, and seemed to be trying to sus me out. I had this vague feeling I recognised him from somewhere but wasn't sure where, so I just asked something like 'don't I know you from somewhere years ago?' I can still remember this odd look of fear briefly came across his face before he bluffed his way out of it, which I must have mentally noted as being a bit sus, but then I was far too hectic to worry about it at the time, which I had now.

Lots of other stuff now makes sense as well. Glad we kept the twat at arms length in the end, though I suspect he was still able to do some significant damage - eg targetted arrests of action medics control team, wombles minibus in glasgow, and us losing our preferred sites several times before finally ending up on the site we ended up on which was relatively easy to be blockaded in to.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 15, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> No. He deserves vitriol and more.


Achieves nothing though. The man is utterly powerless and useless in all respects other than casting light on how these things work and the effects they have on the people involved. I'm not saying his impotence absolves him of his responsibility but it's just not productive to hate him.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Achieves nothing though.



Pour encourager les autres.

We cannot afford to allow potential professional betrayers like this to think they can walk away from an 'exciting job' scot-free.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 15, 2011)

yeah, the hatred seems to have seeped through into his soul, hence all the feeling sorry for himself - an end in itself...


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 15, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> *Pour encourager les autres.*
> 
> We cannot afford to allow potential professional betrayers like this to think they can walk away from an 'exciting job' scot-free.


Ooh, steady. That has connotations...


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I don't have a dogmatic objection to police going undercover; I can see that sometimes it is justified. What I find odd about him is that he seems to have been aware of many instances where the police response was totally out of proportion, and yet he kept on doing it. Particularly strange was the bit where (assuming of course that what he related was accurate and I realise it might not have been) he was trying to stop the police beating up another protester and they ended up beating him up and dislocating his spine and so on... you'd think that would make him question what he was doing and what he was part of.
> 
> With regards to the woman of course he didn't do the right thing. Lots of people don't do the right thing when it comes to romantic relationships. He did bad things, maybe he's a bad person but that doesn't stop me having some degree of empathy for him. I'm a disgraceful bleeding liberal because I'm not capable of seeing these things from a binary good/bad point of view.
> 
> Anyway what I'm saying is I agree with you.


I could have empathised with him if he walked away after drax or something, but he didn't, he went back in and set about infiltrating and destroying protest organisations and counter culture groups across Europe instead on behalf of the same group of cunts who'd beaten the shit out of him.

that marks him out as a complete cunt in my book.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 15, 2011)

...For EIGHT YEARS.

And then after getting busted, and not getting the pat on the back and the plum job he thought he deserved from his grey-faced bosses (who'd'a thunk that bosses would shit on their underling?!), he signed up to a private security firm specialising in spying on protesters on behalf of seriously big business, AND set up a private security company of his own for good measure.

But, you know, FEEL THE REMORSE.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 15, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> .he signed up to a private security firm specialising in spying on protesters on behalf of seriously big business, AND set up a private security company of his own for good measure.



Oh really?
Well. well well well.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2011)

free spirit said:


> that marks him out as a complete cunt in my book.



I don't see why that necessarily rules out having some degree of empathy for his predicament.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2011)

teuchter said:


> I don't see why that necessarily rules out having some degree of empathy for his predicament.


a predicament entirely of his own making.

he chose to live the life of a police spy, said yes when asked to infiltrate the environmental and anticapitalist protest movement, then continued in that role for 7 years even after witnessing police brutality, falling in love with an activist, and making many friendships in the movement.

He could have walked away at any point, but only did so after he was found out. Even after that he then goes and works for another branch of the enemy still targeting the same groups, while at the same time making out in public that he misses his old mates / love of his life etc etc.

cunt pure and simple.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

it's difficult to disagree with that analysis imo.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

he didn't even walk away when first found out, he continued to argue his case.

and then went and tried to flog his "intelligence" as you describe.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 15, 2011)

free spirit said:


> One bit of it sparked some memories...



Any of this ring any bells?



> Started a fight outside the gates of the “Horizone” camp in Stirling by the main gates of the site.
> 
> Was often seen standing there using his handsfree kit (uncommon at the time) which may or may not have been directly transmitting to the police who were constantly standing nearby.
> 
> ...



From Powerbase.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2011)

free spirit said:


> cunt pure and simple.



What does this actually mean?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

teuchter said:


> What does this actually mean?


that he has a low opinion of his moral gravitas essentially.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2011)

teuchter said:


> What does this actually mean?





> the _Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English_ defines it as "a despicable man"


 
I concur.

hth


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Any of this ring any bells?
> 
> From Powerbase.


mostly rings a vague bell, though him wearing the hands free phone thing did make sense as he was mostly driving minibuses about, and our transport team needed to be in phone contact while driving to sort out the logistics of picking up as many of the 500+ we'd had nicked from police stations and court houses all over scotland.

tbh in that respect I have to admit he seemed pretty good as were all of the transport crew.

I've vague recollections of some sort of handbags situations going on, but no idea if it was him involved or not.

I'm also fairly sure that the 3 of them were the team of 3 who'd been noted as going round the free party scene in the year or so leading up to the G8 just hanging around at the back for a bit taking photo's of everything then fucking off. Could be wrong though, could have been another team I guess and I only glimpsed them briefly in the dark from a way off after my mate pointed them out.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 15, 2011)

@ 25.16



> Did you ever inform directly about something that was being done, or planned to be done by the woman you were in love with?





> No, nope.





> That would have been hard I imagine?





> I wouldn't have done it.





> Wouldn't you?





> No.





> Really, you would have....?





> I wouldn't have said anything, I wouldn't have said anything.



You decide.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Nov 15, 2011)

M.K. Was used by the state as a tool then discarded.
Seven years operating undercover, thousands of man hours, and the whole thing costing millions. For what?
Not one single conviction came out of it.
And why infiltrate the far left and environmentalists? They're mainly harmless and ineffectual in this country,they pose a threat to no one. Authorities Been pissing in the wind all that time.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'll admit that I was only half watching and I missed the first half almost entirely so I'm not fully aware of how many people he incriminated and the consequences for them but i'd imagine that woman found herself in a really difficult place.


The voiceover at the end said that, despite seven years of work, no one was ever convicted of an offence directly from information supplied by Kennedy (there were some convictions but they were overturned on appeal).

The context is, of course, people acting through social conscience, so the best the police could hope for would be offences like trespass. Not exactly Guantanamo scale stuff. What on earth were Plod thinking....

Also, as some will know, Kennedy's codename was UC0133 - undercover officer number 133. Which makes you wonder....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Wiping a tear away, mourning his lost love, whilst raking in the cash from the intereviews, documentarys, the book and probably the fucking movie.

And remember most of his 'undercover' life was spent partying and shagging around interspersed with bouts of direct action - he was being paid handsomely to live it up. He fucking loved it.

And I'm sure the 'injured his back whilst defending girl from the cops' story is bollocks - cos he told me and others that he fucked his back in a climbing accident. In fact I was helping him to a taxi cab at time. Wish Id have kicked the pig cunt into the fucking road.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 15, 2011)

plus the 20-year police pension he'll draw forever.

And if he still has a mortgage, I'm Peter Andre. Looked a nice house btw, on a noisy road but I'm sure he'll be moving upmarket quite soon.

and annuder thing, the question should have been 'how much are you being paid to participate in this film' - another example of wanting it both ways.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 15, 2011)

Ask Uncle Max.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 15, 2011)

The stuff about him setting up a business once he left the Police in order to carry on spying confirms that he is well deserved to be on people's shit lists.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> frogwoman - i don't understand why you like anudder oik's nonsense



I dont really know the facts or who that person is, so yeah might be bollocks! do you/anyone have a good link?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Wiping a tear away, mourning his lost love, whilst raking in the cash from the intereviews, documentarys, the book and probably the fucking movie.
> 
> And remember most of his 'undercover' life was spent partying and shagging around interspersed with bouts of direct action - he was being paid handsomely to live it up. He fucking loved it.
> 
> And I'm sure the 'injured his back whilst defending girl from the cops' story is bollocks - cos he told me and others that he fucked his back in a climbing accident. In fact I was helping him to a taxi cab at time. Wish Id have kicked the pig cunt into the fucking road.



Ugh.  What a fucking cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I dont really know the facts or who that person is, so yeah might be bollocks! do you/anyone have a good link?


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...r-police-officer.262238/page-36#post-10624416


----------



## Kidda (Nov 15, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> So I'm the only person who empathised with him just a little bit?
> The ethics of such infiltration aside, did you not think how bloody miserable his life will be now with no family, no community, no job, no loyalties and no real self worth...
> I suppose people will say he deserves it, and maybe he does, i just felt a bit sorry for him.



I didn't feel any empathy towards him at all. He came across as if he was acting and all his answers had been scripted (which they possibly were).

The bit at the start where he displays the exercise that led to him becoming a infil-cop and the way he acted in its reconstruction followed throughout the programme. There wasn't a moment where he came across as genuine.

It was all show.

Cunt of the highest order.

The video clip of the protesters he had so bravely infiltrated,marching in a orderly line and all chanting ''we want peace'' summed up the whole programme for me. He spent 7 years playing James Bond and coming out of it achieving fuck all. Whilst he was infiltrating ''we want peace'' protesters the 7/7 Bombings happened. A lot of money and focus wasted. What makes me more angry is the cunt was using my bloody tax money to try and stitch up my friends.

I hope he never gets a job again.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2011)

Kidda said:


> *I didn't feel any empathy towards him at all. He came across as if he was acting and all his answers had been scripted (which they possibly were).*
> 
> The bit at the start where he displays the exercise that led to him becoming a infil-cop and the way he acted in its reconstruction followed throughout the programme. There wasn't a moment where he came across as genuine.
> 
> It was all show.



Totally agree, especially with the bit I've bolded -- the prog was massive spin from beginning to end. Fascinating to watch for sure, but in no way to be trusted -- a load of disingenuous bollocks from Kennedy throughout.

What KT, FS, Paulie, and Dave Cinzano have posted was spot on, and very informative,  because most of what they posted came from proper knowlege, came from them having encountered the tosser.

I agree 100% with what they said -- and all I am is the laziest armchair 'activist' ever, who hardly ever did anything 

I'm glad SBL posted what she did though as well, and teuchter, because it sparked off some discussion that was necessary.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2011)

Trev's thread (mentioned above) that he started in the TV forum is here

I'm just crosslinking because there's a few interesting reactions to the prog over there as well, and mainly from people not posting on this one.

</pogofish ...  >


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2011)

just watching the hagiography now and i feel physically sick.

bloke is an absolute cunt, top to bottom, for so many reasons.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 15, 2011)

This guy is fucking slime.  Fuck him and his getting-the-onion-out performance.

(Apologies - not a reasoned or polite response, but, well, does he really deserve any sort of consideration?)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 15, 2011)

A friend of mine noticed she still had his number in her phone the other day. She immediately threw the phone in the river.

No, she never shagged him before you ask. Friends of ours did though. Doesn't bear thinking about. I hope he stews in his own betrayal for the rest of his days.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 15, 2011)

Just watching it now, 3/4's in it at least shows activists in a better light than the police.  Kennedy is an unforgivable prick, its borderline rape, fuck him and his guilt.


----------



## Maltin (Nov 15, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> its borderline rape


----------



## Maltin (Nov 15, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Also, as some will know, Kennedy's codename was UC0133 - undercover officer number 133. Which makes you wonder....


Obviously I'm naive.  what does it mean?  UCOB3????  Sounds like some dodgy personalised numberplate that to the unitiated means nothing.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 16, 2011)

are there a 132 others? try and use your imagination like.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


>



Sorry Maltin, smilies leave me with a sense of non-perceptive functionality sometimes, could you elaborate?  He slept and developed relationships with women under entirely false pretenses, its in the ball park imo.  A 30 year old man sleeping with a physically/sexually developed 14 year old is rightly jailed, as they are assumed unable to make sound judgement from what they know of life.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


> Obviously I'm naive. what does it mean? UCOB3???? Sounds like some dodgy personalised numberplate that to the unitiated means nothing.


----------



## Maltin (Nov 16, 2011)

teuchter said:


>


To this and Paulie Tandoori's response, it still doesn't really mean anything to me. The link is that there is a bus that goes to Streatham with 133 on it? Searching Wikipedia says *133* (*CXXXIII*) was a common year starting on Wednesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Hiberus and Sisenna. Even more* *


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 16, 2011)

Ive been a bit hung on this - through aquainatnces of friends, I know what goes with with undercover coppers in the going undercover in paedophile "rings" and it has fucked many of them up long term.They may be copperati but it has affected a few of them pretty badly.

but

looking through his powerbase cv travels, his supply and organisation of logistics for various actions, his resignation from the filth in what seems to be a fit of pique and his subsequent whoring of himself to companies and setting up his own security consultancy does suggest that he is a self centered cunt of the highest order. The sexing up of activists isnt too much of an issue with me apart from being a headline grabber ( apart from the deceipt obviously ).Hes obviously had a whale of a time for the past decade, what with his jet set fully funded lifestyle and regular wages.If he had qualms about what he did, he could have jumped ship at any point, and some in his line of work have done and joined the other side

do you think is he had been offered promotion and an MBE for his services to the filth when his time was up, he would have resigned ? fuck off

once a copper, always a copper. fuck him , his likely autobiog , film deals in the offing and his fat pension.


----------



## Maltin (Nov 16, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Sorry Maltin, smilies leave me with a sense of non-perceptive functionality sometimes, could you elaborate? He slept and developed relationships with women under entirely false pretenses, its in the ball park imo. A 30 year old man sleeping with a physically/sexually developed 14 year old is rightly jailed, as they are assumed unable to make sound judgement from what they know of life.


I'm sorry that you have non-perceptive functionality; whatever that is.  Perhaps that's why you can't perceive what rape is.  Rape is forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. In certain jurisdictions, the courts determine that people below the age of "consent" are incapable of consenting and can punish people on this basis.  I'm not aware of any rape laws being based on people not knowing the full history of someone before having sex with them.  If rape were based on having sex with someone on false premises, I'm sure the police would be indundated with claims across the land every night of the week.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 16, 2011)

A copper building years of trust on the basis of being anti-police, then having sex and forming a future lifetime partnership with the woman he had lied to over those years is non-consensual imo.  Telling some lass in a club you have a pilots license and getting your wicked end away is immoral.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


> I'm sorry that you have non-perceptive functionality; whatever that is. Perhaps that's why you can't perceive what rape is. Rape is forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. In certain jurisdictions, the courts determine that people below the age of "consent" are incapable of consenting and can punish people on this basis. I'm not aware of any rape laws being based on people not knowing the full history of someone before having sex with them. If rape were based on having sex with someone on false premises, I'm sure the police would be indundated with claims across the land every night of the week.



I take your point on this - it isn't rape (or as bad).  But the issue of consent does become a factor when a person with-holds information likely to influence the prospective partners desire to give that consent.  Taken to its ultimate conclusion, I think I've heard of cases where a transexual does not disclose their gender realignment.  This could border on abuse, and so could Kennedys behaviour.  It certainly shows a complete lack of respect for the partner, a total disregard for sexual etiquette.  Rape is a strong word, misused in this case, but I think the outrage that fuels the use of that word is entirely justified.


----------



## Maltin (Nov 16, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> A copper building years of trust on the basis of being anti-police, then having sex and forming a future lifetime partnership with the woman he had lied to over those years is non-consensual imo. Telling some lass in a club you have a pilots license and getting your wicked end away is immoral.


According to your logic, a lie to have a shag for one night is immoral, but to continue that lie for an extended period then makes it rape?  I've heard of people leading double lives with 2 wives/partners on the go. Whilst obviously what they were doing was wrong, are you saying that they were commiting rape over that period because neither of their partners knew the truth?  It was consensual at the time but once the other party knows the truth it becomes non-consensual?


----------



## Maltin (Nov 16, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I take your point on this - it isn't rape (or as bad). But the issue of consent does become a factor when a person with-holds information likely to influence the prospective partners desire to give that consent. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, I think I've heard of cases where a transexual does not disclose their gender realignment. This could border on abuse, and so could Kennedys behaviour. It certainly shows a complete lack of respect for the partner, a total disregard for sexual etiquette. Rape is a strong word, misused in this case, but I think the outrage that fuels the use of that word is entirely justified.


Obviously in this instance, or in an instance when someone has sex with someone who does not disclose their true gender as in your example, the person fooled is not going to be happy.  But to go from being unhappy to claiming to be a victim of rape or some other legal claim, is farfetched in my opinion.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


> Obviously in this instance, or in an instance when someone has sex with someone who does not disclose their true gender as in your example, the person fooled is not going to be happy. But to go from being unhappy to claiming to be a victim of rape or some other legal claim, is farfetched in my opinion.



I do wonder where one would stand legally if true gender was not disclosed. I think the police might take an interest. I dont know much about sexual assault laws, but that seems dodgy ground to me.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


> According to your logic, a lie to have a shag for one night is immoral, but to continue that lie for an extended period then makes it rape? I've heard of people leading double lives with 2 wives/partners on the go. Whilst obviously what they were doing was wrong, are you saying that they were commiting rape over that period because neither of their partners knew the truth? It was consensual at the time but once the other party knows the truth it becomes non-consensual?


I do see different degrees, aye.  Having sex after a few hours of knowing each other based on one party bragging in a club, but being attractive to you, is not the same as someone who lies to you to ensure they build a relationship over several months with the other person literally living a police controlled lie.  Their main target being to lock you and your friends up.  I'd rather have a safe, casual, fuck, than commit my life to someone who sends me and my friends to jail after fucking me repeatedly in the physical sense.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 16, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> A copper building years of trust on the basis of being anti-police, then having sex and forming a future lifetime partnership with the woman he had lied to over those years is non-consensual imo. Telling some lass in a club you have a pilots license and getting your wicked end away is immoral.



I often tell people I've got a pilot's license but it's never got me laid. FWIW I don't have a pilot's license as such but I have trained as a pilot.

I may have used the word rape in this thread, but it's really not appropriate. I'm not generally concerned with legal definitions of right and wrong anyhow. What has happened here is a level of betrayal so heinous that most of us would never even think such a thing possible. Hence we don't really have a name for it, still less a legal definition. You might well take something a bloke tells you in a bar with a pinch of salt but you wouldn't ever expect someone to be so depraved as to create an entirely fake identity and then start a serious relationship with you based on it, all the while keeping one eye open (hah!) for any way he can get you and your mates sent to prison.

Was Kennedy's behaviour illegal? You could argue the toss over that, and as it's a copper we're dealing with illegal is a fairly irrelevant term anyway. Was it morally acceptable? Absolutely not. There really is no way anyone with any kind of conscience could justify it. To say it was necessary for his cover is absurd, I've been an activist for many years and I've never been witchhunted for not dipping my wick often enough.

The fact that channel 4, directly or indirectly, has given this scumbag money to tell his tale is frankly appalling. To present him in some kind of sympathetic light, as they seem to have done, is just nauseating. I don't care how sorry he is or how much he's suffering now, it's a fraction of what he deserves.


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 16, 2011)

I think folks are getting way too uptight.  Personally the guy behaved reprehensibly in developing a relationship whilst still married.  I can see thet he may have been fooled into thinking he could maintain the relationshiop and escape his marriage, how much that figured in his exposure I don't know.  One certain thing that has been reported , but has been ignored is that he developed a sympathy for those he was tasked to infiltrate.  This lead to the collapse of the court case.  Folks may want to vilify the guy for the tactics, but (it seems) he was captured by the culture.  While I don't like what he did to his wife and kids, I don't blame him in trying to get as much out of the fall-out as he can.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 16, 2011)

And others might argue he allowed that relationship to develop - and used and abused that woman - because it made more authentic Mark Stone. I'm not say he cynically sought it out for that reason alone - he may have for all I know - but however it happened it was a hugely helpful addition to the persona of Stone.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


> To this and Paulie Tandoori's response, it still doesn't really mean anything to me. The link is that there is a bus that goes to Streatham with 133 on it? Searching Wikipedia says *133* (*CXXXIII*) was a common year starting on Wednesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Hiberus and Sisenna. Even more* *


UCO133 means Undercover Officer 133. Why would you start an index at 133, or 121, or 56.7? Where would a professional begin an index?


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 16, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> And others might argue he allowed that relationship to develop - and used and abused that woman - because it made more authentic Mark Stone. I'm not say he cynically sought it out for that reason alone - he may have for all I know - but however it happened it was a hugely helpful addition to the persona of Stone.


Given the fallout and his comments that he still cares for the lady I beieve that the Mark Stone persona became the more important one too him.  He was in a difficult position. On a personal level he was initially in a position that was probably professionally exploitable.  Over time the position he was in led to decisions that he was forced or wished to take that has led to this almighty screw-up.  Everything that I have read seems to suggest that he genuinely regrets the personal damage that he caused to the lady he had the relationship with and his initial family, both of which are entirely without any blame.

While I don't support his position personally (I've been a victim of infidelity) I can easily understand the position thet led to it.  When a married policeman goes under cover there are three options - work as a married person using your real family, work as a 'masrried couple' where the partner is another officer, work as a single person. The first option is generally way too risky and wouldn't be entertained, as I understand it the second option was not realistic, which meant the third option was used.  What went wrong was that there was no support, or worse, active encouagement , that caused him to form the relationship that he did.

The only thing that surprises me is the level of vitriol applied to him given the outcome.  Yes, it turned out he was an agent provocateur, but the evidence he gave actually cleared the protestors!  I really do find it amazing that a guy working within this situation where he has clearly acted in the interests of the lady concerned is vilified to the point of calling the relationship abusive.  It really is a mockery of the definition, I believe that there are plenty of people that are in physically and emotionally abusive relationships that would think that this has been blown out of all proportion!


----------



## newbie (Nov 16, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> I think folks are getting way too uptight.



you do?  who was it that exposed him, who made clear that her loyalty to her friends and her ideals meant far more than her relationship with him? He must have known how she would react- how violated she would feel- before he took up with her and then every single day throughout their relationship,and he must have known that she would not consent if she knew he was a copper.  That level of deception for sexual purposes may stretch the current legal definition of rape but maybe that's a direction the law ought to be looking in


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 16, 2011)

newbie said:


> you do? who was it that exposed him, who made clear that her loyalty to her friends and her ideals meant far more than her relationship with him? He must have known how she would react- how violated she would feel- before he took up with her and then every single day throughout their relationship,and he must have known that she would not consent if she knew he was a copper. That level of deception for sexual purposes may stretch the current legal definition of rape but maybe that's a direction the law ought to be looking in


I've quite explicitly stated that I don't support the position he got himself into.  I don't know how the lady found out the details about his life, whether she dug out the details or he volunterered them to her.  I understand that subsequent to her discovering the details she has had fuck all to do with him, but it still does not indicate violition.  Nor, as far as I'm aware, was there any 'deception for sexual purposes' .  If we are going down that road then any guy bigging himself up in the hope of getting laid would be guilty of sexual abuse!


----------



## newbie (Nov 16, 2011)

no, anyone actively presenting themselves as a direct opposite of their real position not, as others have said, as a one-off but day after day for years on end.

A level of deception for sexual purposes that's far outside the norm and which is almost guaranteed to leave the victim feeling violated and potentially as scarred as if they'd been physically assaulted.

A deception necessitated because the victim would quite explicitly have nothing whatsoever to do with the perpetrator if their real circumstances were known.


----------



## mr steev (Nov 16, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> The only thing that surprises me is the level of vitriol applied to him given the outcome. Yes, it turned out he was an agent provocateur, but the evidence he gave actually cleared the protestors! I really do find it amazing that a guy working within this situation where he has clearly acted in the interests of the lady concerned is vilified to the point of calling the relationship abusive. It really is a mockery of the definition, I believe that there are plenty of people that are in physically and emotionally abusive relationships that would think that this has been blown out of all proportion!



Some of the evidence he gave led to his mates getting a kicking, including, apparently, getting his own spine disclocated by a coppers boot. Just because the odd trial broke down and no-one actually got sent to prison for years doesn't mean that his actions helped the protestors!
How can you say that he acted in the interests of the lady concerned? He consciously lied to her for years, built a whole relationship on complete fabrication. Not just extended the truth that he could fly a plane, or was in the SAS or something... his whole persona was complete, deliberate, fabrication and he used that to consciously delude someone who he apparently loved. Do you really think that this has not seriously fucked up his ex-girlfriend to the point of abuse? Where's the support for her?


----------



## Random (Nov 16, 2011)

Kidda said:


> I didn't feel any empathy towards him at all. He came across as if he was acting and all his answers had been scripted (which they possibly were).


 Yes, he's been playing a role for decades. For the police and now for himself, mentored by Max Clifford. He's probably lost the ability to act authentically.


----------



## Garek (Nov 16, 2011)

MikeMCC I think you are being rather naïve.


----------



## Maltin (Nov 16, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> UCO133 means Undercover Officer 133. Why would you start an index at 133, or 121, or 56.7? Where would a professional begin an index?


OK, now sober, I can see what you mean  but I'm not sure that it does necessarily follow that for something like this that you would start at 1. You would start somewhere random like 10, 100, or, perhaps, 130.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 16, 2011)

Maltin said:


> OK, now sober, I can see what you mean  but I'm not sure that it does necessarily follow that for something like this that you would start at 1. You would start somewhere random like 10, 100, or, perhaps, 130.



And most undercover plod will be doing much shorter stints with drug gangs and the like. I seriously doubt that there are 130-odd undercover plod in the activist movement, not least because there's probably only around 500 people in the whole country who regularly involve themselves in unlawful direct action, and it would seem a waste of time even by police standards to send so much manpower chasing after them.


----------



## Random (Nov 17, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> Given the fallout and his comments that he still cares for the lady I beieve that the Mark Stone persona became the more important one too him. He was in a difficult position. On a personal level he was initially in a position that was probably professionally exploitable. Over time the position he was in led to decisions that he was forced or wished to take that has led to this almighty screw-up. Everything that I have read seems to suggest that he genuinely regrets the personal damage that he caused to the lady he had the relationship with and his initial family, both of which are entirely without any blame.


 If the 'Mark Stone' persona became the one most important to him, why did he become a private security agent after leaving the police? He may have initially been 'forced' into certain activities, but then he decided to keep doing them as a career.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 17, 2011)

Lets not forget he was the self-described "go to" man "across Europe". He was important. Really important <insert imagery of violence>. While in the extra-marital, fake persona relationship.

Aside from that ego issue, it seems he was totally played by his handler and senior officers. They understood his buttons, they allowed him to step beyond 'the rules' of the game, and those senior officers build reputations across Europe (and more widely through the G8) on the back of Mark Stone.


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 17, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> And most undercover plod will be doing much shorter stints with drug gangs and the like. I seriously doubt that there are 130-odd undercover plod in the activist movement, not least because there's probably only around 500 people in the whole country who regularly involve themselves in unlawful direct action, and it would seem a waste of time even by police standards to send so much manpower chasing after them.



I would say the liklihood is that one in 20 are informers who are recruited into the ranks, in the main by offers of money or a mix of blackmail and money. No real welfare issues, background story and cheaper I would imagine. I ran someone in the BNP for a year and studied a fair bit about the spy game and spoke with people who had ran 'agents' and the psychology side was extremely valuable.  (Yeah yeah and I should know I was SEARCHLIGHT in big neon letters) Hope Im wrong but when youve been stung by a dodge pot yourself and get 15 months for it, it makes one rather more cynical.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 17, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> And most undercover plod will be doing much shorter stints with drug gangs and the like. I seriously doubt that there are 130-odd undercover plod in the activist movement, not least because there's probably only around 500 people in the whole country who regularly involve themselves in unlawful direct action, and it would seem a waste of time even by police standards to send so much manpower chasing after them.


I think you wilfully misunderstand how much they spend on this shit.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 17, 2011)

Lets all be honest and admit that this cloak and dagger stuff is also a lot of fun as is a lot of the protesting/extreme political movements. Just a big game in which not a lot happens but which gives people a lot of pleasure from all sides of the divide.

Sometimes I wonder if certain organisations have more 'under-cover' people involved in them than genuine members and if these people actually get in each others way.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets all be honest and admit that this cloak and dagger stuff is also a lot of fun as is a lot of the protesting/extreme political movements. Just a big game in which not a lot happens but which gives people a lot of pleasure from all sides of the divide.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if certain organisations have more 'under-cover' people involved in them than genuine members and if these people actually get in each others way.



Isn't that *much* too complacent a perspective?

Did you actually *see* the documentary on this fella?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2011)

mr steev said:


> Some of the evidence he gave led to his mates getting a kicking, including, apparently, getting his own spine disclocated by a coppers boot. Just because the odd trial broke down and no-one actually got sent to prison for years doesn't mean that his actions helped the protestors!
> How can you say that he acted in the interests of the lady concerned? He consciously lied to her for years, built a whole relationship on complete fabrication. Not just extended the truth that he could fly a plane, or was in the SAS or something... his whole persona was complete, deliberate, fabrication and he used that to consciously delude someone who he apparently loved. Do you really think that this has not seriously fucked up his ex-girlfriend to the point of abuse? Where's the support for her?


 
mr steev has it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 23, 2011)

FYI

Canada's own 'van cop' scandal is all over the maple leaf papers at the moment.



> The undercover police officers who infiltrated two activist communities in southern Ontario played key roles in planning the G20 protests – going so far as identifying targets for mayhem, The Globe and Mail has learned.
> 
> One officer helped develop a list of locations for protesters to congregate at or vandalize; another was such a prominent presence in pre-G20 marches that his face was twice featured in newspapers alongside the activists he was spying on.


An RCMP-led police unit was set up to infiltrate activist groups organising in resistance to the 2011 G20 summit in Toronto. That unit is now said to have burrowed a dozen undercover cop spies into various campaigns and groups over a period of 18 months.

A number of 'ringleaders' were subsequently charged in relation to a supposed conspiracy to commit violence. A plea deal has been hammered out, under which the majority walk, though six plead to "counselling to commit an indictable offence".

Over time it has transpired that at least two cops - a boisterous, energetic younger man with a van, and a quieter, older woman who seemed to be looking for youthful, idealistic new friends (recognise the archetypes here?) - were at the heart of the Crown's case.

In September the identity of 'Khalid Mohammed' - AKA Constable Bindo Showan - became the subject of a pre-trial publication ban relating to the conspiracy case, as did that of the quieter, older woman, 'Brenda Dougherty' (AKA Constable Brenda Carey), and other undercover police.



> ...The pair was among 12 undercover agents who participated in an RCMP-led Joint Intelligence Group that monitored threats to the G20 summit...



But then in November Guelph communist activist Julian Ichim started a blog, in which he talked about 'Khalid Mohammed' the boisterous, energetic younger man who had gone out of his way to befriend him, but whom subsequently he came to realise was a paid betrayer.

The police threatened Ichim with arrest if he did not remove the name from his blog. Ichim refused. He was charged, and given a court date in December.

After a few days, though, the story spread, and prosecutors applied for the ban to be lifted, conceding it was moot, given that 'Khalid Mohammed' had gone viral.

So after millions of dollars, _at least_ twelve cops spending _at least_ a year and a half working on their James Bond fantasies, the Crown ends up with its lengthy attempt to paint a narrative of a sinister cabal of 17 'anarchist ringleaders' directing 'domestic terrorism' crashing around its ears, whilst hard evidence of its infiltrators and provocateurs emerges...

At the same time the wheels on the Byron Sonne 'G20 geek' prosecution seem to be falling off ("You're making a Byron-eat-shit pie!"), despite the judge's best efforts to mitigate the embarrassingly poor police and 'intelligence' work that put him in court; and the full extent of the deliberate denial of Charter Rights to G20 arrestees continue to drip, drip, drip out...

More here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/22/g20-police-operation.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1090747--undercover-cop-drove-anarchists-to-meetings?bn=1
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...or-downtown-mayhem-during-g20/article2245680/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-groups-planning-g20-protests/article2244253/
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...otesters-see-one-door-open-another-close?bn=1
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/l...d-against-a-guelph-activist-over-g20-blogging


----------



## likesfish (Nov 23, 2011)

Thing is everyone's met someone who has fantasy's of workers defence squads and the ilk thats meets special branch who are paid to be paranoid.
 they decide they need an agent tin places and suddenly they have to justify and agent in place and the wholething escalates
  nobody is ever going to turn round and claiming having being employed as Editors intern that urban75 is harmless even if the "intern" does because then they are admitting they have spunked a huge budget on making sure some dread locked web forum running type has a minion end of career


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 23, 2011)

Once more, only this time in English, please.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 23, 2011)

bignose1 said:


> I would say the liklihood is that one in 20 are informers....



If the police used a lot  of informer amongst political activists you would expect some informants to be exposed and some other people to come forward announcing that they had been approached to become an informer.  If this isn't the case why would you assume the level was so high?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 23, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Thing is everyone's met someone who has fantasy's of workers defence squads and the ilk thats meets special branch who are paid to be paranoid.
> they decide they need an agent tin places and suddenly they have to justify and agent in place and the wholething escalates
> nobody is ever going to turn round and claiming having being employed as Editors intern that urban75 is harmless even if the "intern" does because then they are admitting they have spunked a huge budget on making sure some dread locked web forum running type has a minion end of career


ehhhh? you what now??


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 23, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> If the police used a lot of informer amongst political activists you would expect some informants to be exposed and some other people to come forward announcing that they had been approached to become an informer. If this isn't the case why would you assume the level was so high?



I've had police ask me for information. Not specifically on activist stuff, and when they asked me it was a good 18 months since I'd been involved in anything even vaguely "covert". They will ask, if they think that a person is a possible target.

Both times, out of curiosity, I said "what's in it for me?". One was when I was under arrest, and the copper said "nothing, you've been watching too many episodes of The Bill, mate. Though if someones pissed you off and you want to get back at them, this is a good opportunity", and the other, during a random stop and search they said "we just won't make it open season on you..." (which might have been vaguely worrying if I was particularly dodgy, but I'm not).

Though I do reckon activists are probably known for being pretty tight lipped.  The stakes are usually pretty low, because prison sentences are so unlikely for the sort of crimes committed, and the motivations for crime are so different to the average arrestee..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Thing is everyone's met someone who has fantasy's of workers defence squads and the ilk thats meets special branch who are paid to be paranoid.
> they decide they need an agent tin places and suddenly they have to justify and agent in place and the wholething escalates
> nobody is ever going to turn round and claiming having being employed as Editors intern that urban75 is harmless even if the "intern" does because then they are admitting they have spunked a huge budget on making sure some dread locked web forum running type has a minion end of career


Exactly.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 23, 2011)

Police read something or overhear a dangerous wadical like jazz claiming the ed for example is raising an army of welsh ninjas manage to convince themselves that it is a credible threat and decide the only way to discover if the ed is the welsh ninja master is too mount a covert op.
 so get an attractive WPC to pose as the editors intern  having briefed her that he is the welsh master ninja
  Fact said agent can find no proof that the ed is the welsh ninja just means he's using the  madz ninja skills nobody's going to turn round after the first months bills come in and admit its a total waste of cash.


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 23, 2011)

eh? 

interesting piece about kennedy/stone here, btw


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 23, 2011)

Re the Canadian #vancops, I forgot to mention that both Bindo and Brenda had been outed (with their fake names) on SnitchWire last year. A tweet just reminded me I'd read the posts on them when they were made at the time


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 24, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> If the police used a lot of informer amongst political activists you would expect some informants to be exposed and some other people to come forward announcing that they had been approached to become an informer. If this isn't the case why would you assume the level was so high?


People do come forward..not always though I accept, as some organistions will be wary or distrust someone who has been approached by the cops. If having been viewed by them as potential for recruitment would this mean they were considered vulnerable and therefore a weak link. This was maybe something you'd want to keep under wraps. Its like when people got lifted for something a bit more serious..it was advised to stand them down or at least give them some scrutiny. Ok that might be in the main be the likes of IRA, ETA or hard line activists who use violence as their brief and maybe Im not totally up to speed from my activist days but if youve got a group of 100 then 5 insnt that many. And having more informants inside the group can test the accuracy of the intelligence coming back. Informants are exposed from time to time or they leave or stood down if they are considered non productive/cost effective.

Putting people into the far right was no different. Im glad however none of the issues arose like they did in kennedys case. I would like to say we would have had more about us. Drug dealers I consider very suspect and some leading figures n the criminal underworld were found to be informants.. with the cops playing one lot off against another. Why should you believe your dealer couldnt also be spying on you, he hasnt any scruples selling you bashed coke. One reason I viewed regular drug users/dealers sus in my activist days. The concern about being infiltrated can be very damaging and it certainly cost us a few good people. Some groups I know took to vetting and setting tests a sort of probationary period. But what can be more worring is that those doing the vetting etc can be the ones in the 'club' Dont forget Scappaticci 'Steaknife' who led the 'nutting squad' an extreme example but proves my last point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> If the police used a lot of informer amongst political activists you would expect some informants to be exposed and some other people to come forward announcing that they had been approached to become an informer. If this isn't the case why would you assume the level was so high?


i've been approached to become an informer, and i know a number of other people who've been approached to become informers. it's not like i kept this quiet at the time, btw


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 24, 2011)

All I was trying to suggest is that there is a balance to be struct between activists being aware of the risk and assuming the worst case scenario.  I'm aware of the Stakeknife case, but I think there is a danger of extrapolating too much from what happened to the Provies.  I'm also aware of special branch having a chat with activists from a range of backgrounds.

1 in 20 informers may not seem like many,  but if this figure doesn't include the investigative journalists, under cover cops and corporate spooks, then it doesn't leave much room for genuine activists in some groups or networks.  My only point was that you need to be careful about generalising too much from particular experiences.  Different groups will be targetted by different organisations using different tactics.  Are informers considered a safer tactic against groups using more militant tactics involving serious criminal actions?  Is police infiltration of less militant groups easier to justify as a tactic for building a back story and gaining access to other groups and networks, than running informants in these less militant groups?

Lyn's infiltration of the Clown Army shows that the state is prepared to spy on a fairly wide spectrum of groups.  But, isn't there a danger of talking up the risk to the point where it promotes inaction.  It might be safe for a whole spectrum of political activists to work on the assumption that they are being targetted these days.  But isn't there a healthy distinction between working on this assumption and believing that 1 in 20 of your peers are informers?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 24, 2011)

Earth First! in America is now running an 'Informant Tracking' page on its website.

Consider the efforts - in their breadth and depth - that the state has been prepared to sink into investigating environmental and animal rights activists and their fellow travellers. After all, in the late 90s the ELF made the FBI look like proper mugs, millions of dollars-worth of property destruction with no human casualties.

The Feds, in concert with certain large companies, plus tame legislators at State and Federal level, managed to stir up enough of a Green Scare (starting pre-9/11) that they could get away with characterising this type of political direct action as 'eco-terrorism' and 'domestic extremism'. Infiltrating the movement became a priority. Then once a few arrests were made, suspects were leaned on - heavily - to become cooperating witnesses, and to spy on their friends and colleagues. More arrests. More turning. More arrests. More infiltration.

The Operation Backfire investigation seemed pretty harsh at the time - a sentence of 22 years for an action in which no one was hurt (later dropped down to ten years), for example - but since then things have got worse. Too many defendants took non-cooperating plea deals - not good enough for the Feds, for the state. Now the emphasis is on grinding down those targeted, blackmailing, bribing, cajoling, coercing them into becoming cooperating witnesses. 'Plead guilty, but you have to grass on your friends as well' (regardless of whether they did anything). Eco-activists being sent to SuperMax gaols, where extreme isolation techniques, harsh physical conditions and intense psychological assaults are used to break down every aspect of a person's identity. Paid informers (both direct employees of government agencies and those who are not - criminals, thrill-seekers, political mercenaries) sent to burrow into and provoke activists.

As the EF! page shows, many of the snitches now costing others their liberty had previously served time under non-cooperating deals. But the state is upping the ante. A forty year sentence is a tough mirror to look into as a thirty-something for something you did (or heard about, or were generally aware of) ten, fifteen years ago, when you were an impetuous but passionate younger, one committed activist in a close-knit group of other committed activists.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 24, 2011)

Ef were arsonists that caused millions of dollars worth of damage suprise the feds are going to get medieval on you
 direct action loads of embarresment minimal damage state is going to be very angry but not going to lock you up for life.
  Arson tends to be treated harshly everywhere politicaly motivated arson now your in for a real kicking


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 24, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Ef were arsonists that caused millions of dollars worth of damage suprise the feds are going to get medieval on you
> direct action loads of embarresment minimal damage state is going to be very angry but not going to lock you up for life.
> Arson tends to be treated harshly everywhere politicaly motivated arson now your in for a real kicking



Again, deep breaths, and type slowly and accurately.

EF! were arsonists? Really? All of them? Or are you conflating EF! with the ELF name? Not that all ELF-claimed actions were arson anyway.

Besides, the point of the Green Scare is that many - very many - of those ensnared by it had no direct involvement in the large arsons like Vail. Some were above-ground political activists who hadn't been involved in underground direct action. Some hadn't taken part in anything at all, but had been considered a co-conspirator after a paid (and unindicted) informant - at the instruction of their FBI handlers - suggested an action that was never carried out (nor was ever likely to be carried out).


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Nov 24, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I think you wilfully misunderstand how much they spend on this shit.


I don’t think most people realize the extent of  surveillance by the UK state on its citizens and by implication would have no idea of the cost 

A quick Google came up with some interesting numbers from 2008 and 2010.

2008
Councils, police and the intelligence services asked more than 500,000 times for approval to access private email and phone data. Although slightly down on last year, the total is up more than 40% on two years ago. 1 in 78 adults in the UK came under state surveillance in 2008.

2010
Requests specifically from local councils also increased. Among the half a million requests there were more than 1,700 errors, resulting in incorrect numbers or emails being monitored. Some 1,061 of these came from the Security Service and were blamed on two technical glitches. A total of 552,550 such requests were made last year (2010). 10 per cent up on the 504,073 requests made in 2008.

Last November, the information watchdog warned Britain is heading towards becoming a surveillance state of unmanned spy drones, GPS tracking of employees and profiling through social networking sites.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2011)

likesfish said:


> Ef were arsonists that caused millions of dollars worth of damage suprise the feds are going to get medieval on you
> direct action loads of embarresment minimal damage state is going to be very angry but not going to lock you up for life.
> Arson tends to be treated harshly everywhere politicaly motivated arson now your in for a real kicking



any links to back up your latest drivel?


----------



## krink (Nov 24, 2011)

Buzz sw9 said:


> I don’t think most people realize the extent of surveillance by the UK state on its citizens and by implication would have no idea of the cost
> 
> A quick Google came up with some interesting numbers from 2008 and 2010.



Do you know how I'd get this information from my own council? what would I specifically ask? (assuming it'd be do with FOI act).


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Nov 24, 2011)

krink said:


> Do you know how I'd get this information from my own council? what would I specifically ask? (assuming it'd be do with FOI act).


Sorry I don't know, I'm sure someone here will be able to tell you. Is there a thread about making a FOI request?


----------



## krink (Nov 24, 2011)

Buzz sw9 said:


> Sorry I don't know, I'm sure someone here will be able to tell you. Is there a thread about making a FOI request?



Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I can do an FOI but I'm not sure what exactly would I ask for this type of info on accessing private stuff.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 24, 2011)

bignose1 said:


> (Yeah yeah and I should know I was SEARCHLIGHT in big neon letters)



Incidentally, I was reading a thread on the VNN forum from 2009 earlier today called Searchlight Spies where rampant paranoia has them all turning on one other and accusing each other of that very thing. Must be interesting from the perspective of having insider knowledge as to whether their suspicions carried any weight or not. They also reveal what leads them to suspect certain folk which surely serves as more intelligence into their mindset and for strategies etc.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Nov 24, 2011)

krink said:


> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I can do an FOI but I'm not sure what exactly would I ask for this type of info on accessing private stuff.


I think you would need to ask "how many requests have you made under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ........................" (RIPA).


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2011)

Buzz sw9 said:


> I don’t think most people realize the extent of surveillance by the UK state on its citizens and by implication would have no idea of the cost
> 
> A quick Google came up with some interesting numbers from 2008 and 2010.
> 
> ...



500,000 requests - how many were granted?


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Nov 24, 2011)

teuchter said:


> 500,000 requests - how many were granted?


the link says 504,073, doesn't say how many were granted


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2011)

> It showed 504,073* requests* for communication data were made last year



That's the number of requests. I'm asking how many were granted.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Nov 24, 2011)

teuchter said:


> That's the number of requests. I'm asking how many were granted.


ask them, I already said "doesn't say how many were granted"


----------



## likesfish (Nov 24, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Backfire_(FBI)

$12 million dollars and burning a fucking botany lab


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2011)

likesfish said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Backfire_(FBI)
> 
> $12 million dollars and burning a fucking botany lab


listen you stupid cunt
1 - wiki does not really count as evidence as you could edit it if you wanted
2 - EF!- Earth First are not Earth Liberation Front
ok?
presume you'll now be happy to retract and/or edit?


----------



## krink (Nov 24, 2011)

Buzz sw9 said:


> I think you would need to ask "how many requests have you made under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ........................" (RIPA).



thanks mate, i will post back if i get a response


----------



## likesfish (Nov 24, 2011)

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/november/backfire_11908
  ok I git ef and ELF confused fbi version is $26million dollars thats going to get everyones attention and serious jail time


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2011)

likesfish said:


> http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/november/backfire_11908
> ok I git ef and ELF confused fbi version is $26million dollars thats going to get everyones attention and serious jail time


?? are you pissed?


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 24, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Incidentally, I was reading a thread on the VNN forum from 2009 earlier today called Searchlight Spies where rampant paranoia has them all turning on one other and accusing each other of that very thing. Must be interesting from the perspective of having insider knowledge as to whether their suspicions carried any weight or not. They also reveal what leads them to suspect certain folk which surely serves as more intelligence into their mindset and for strategies etc.


Good post. And I'm interested in giving a detailed reply. At the moment -m a bit preoccupied with strike stuff but I will get back. Ive got a book project on the go that will touch on these themes


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 24, 2011)

bignose1 said:


> Good post. And I'm interested in giving a detailed reply. At the moment -m a bit preoccupied with strike stuff but I will get back. Ive got a book project on the go that will touch on these themes


----------



## audiotech (Nov 25, 2011)

Tony Cliff of the SWP had a relaxed view on MI5 infiltrators, he said it was like getting a full-time organiser for free.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2011)

Buzz sw9 said:


> ask them, I already said "doesn't say how many were granted"



You were the one who said


> _I don’t think most people realize the extent of surveillance by the UK state on its citizens and by implication would have no idea of the cost_


which may be true, but if you're going to back it up with figures they should at least be meaningful figures. That article you linked to didn't seem to give any real information. Not surprising as it was from Sky. Also where did the "one in 78 adults" come from?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 25, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Tony Cliff of the SWP had a relaxed view on MI5 infiltrators, he said it watbf s like getting a full-time organiser for free.


 new an old spart who reckoned without the FBI some of their campaigns wouldn't have been nearly as succesful at least they are really good at paperwork

 tbf how gutting must it be if your a public subversive outfit and your not being targeted


----------



## ddraig (Nov 25, 2011)

are you going to retract your crap about EF! or just ignore the fact you've been shown to be incorrect again?


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 25, 2011)

likesfish said:


> new an old spart who reckoned without the FBI some of their campaigns wouldn't have been nearly as succesful at least they are really good at paperwork
> 
> tbf how gutting must it be if your a public subversive outfit and your not being targeted


Ha ha I nearly got recruited into the Sparts but I didnt want to become their Lee Harvey Oswald and end up getting patsied...still got some of there old publications, their newspaper felt like it was printed on rizla!!..Looking back now they were a proper cookie outfit...were these the same group who were targeted by the Klan in Greensboro in the 70's...


----------



## audiotech (Nov 25, 2011)

bignose1 said:


> Ha ha I nearly got recruited into the Sparts but I didnt want to become their Lee Harvey Oswald and get patsied...got some of there old papers..looking back now they were a proper cookie outfit...were these the same group who were killed in Greensboro by the Klan in the 70's...



Communist Workers' Party - Maoists.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 25, 2011)

probably the old geezer was knocking about in the states in the 70s.
 said I got EF! and ELF confused both bunch of anti human wankers so fuck em deep green wankers


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 25, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Communist Workers' Party - Maoists.


And the Klan walked even thoughthe whole thing was filmed...wtf


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 25, 2011)

bignose1 said:


> And the Klan walked even thoughthe whole thing was filmed...wtf



I may be remembering this particular thing wrong, but wasn't there talk of Harold Covington being "in" with the FBI at that point, hence the lack of any convictions on the part of the killers?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 25, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I may be remembering this particular thing wrong, but wasn't there talk of Harold Covington being "in" with the FBI at that point, hence the lack of any convictions on the part of the killers?



FBI has a long long history of operating far-right racist nutbags ...


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 26, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I may be remembering this particular thing wrong, but wasn't there talk of Harold Covington being "in" with the FBI at that point, hence the lack of any convictions on the part of the killers?


Did some googlewiking of what happened(and its aftermath.) I watched a documentary made in 2005 focussing on a sort of truth and reconcilliation inquiry that was taking place. The Klan did indeed have an informer and also a ATF agent inside and active on the day. Not heard about Covingtons role or whether he was an informant for the FBI at that time. But he was from NC I seem to recall.


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 26, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> FBI has a long long history of operating far-right racist nutbags ...


Maybe Harold Covert-ton would have been more appropriater!! A plant if ever there was.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 26, 2011)

bignose 1  - ah, cheers for that.  Makes one wonder what sort of info Mr Covington was feeding back to the FBI when himself was hanging around with Charlie Sargeant and Co in the early 90's, and whether the FBI then fed back said info to British Plod...

Bernie Gunther - thanks too.  I'll have to look into this one a bit more, methinks.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Nov 26, 2011)

teuchter said:


> You were the one who said
> 
> which may be true, but if you're going to back it up with figures they should at least be meaningful figures. That article you linked to didn't seem to give any real information. Not surprising as it was from Sky. Also where did the "one in 78 adults" come from?


I am not backing anything up with figures.

I don't think the vast majority of people living in the UK have the first idea of how much they are watch by their government, the figures I posted were taken from 2 links I looked at, if you bother to look at them you'll see where the 1 in 78 people came from.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 26, 2011)

likesfish said:


> probably the old geezer was knocking about in the states in the 70s.
> said I got EF! and ELF confused both bunch of anti human wankers so fuck em deep green wankers


you are beyond a fucking joke


----------



## bignose1 (Nov 28, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> bignose 1 - ah, cheers for that. Makes one wonder what sort of info Mr Covington was feeding back to the FBI when himself was hanging around with Charlie Sargeant and Co in the early 90's, and whether the FBI then fed back said info to British Plod...
> 
> Bernie Gunther - thanks too. I'll have to look into this one a bit more, methinks.


And said Mr Sargant was a MI5 nark as well. In fact said C18...was probably 90% state dodge pots, 10% crackpots


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 29, 2011)

ddraig said:


> you are beyond a fucking joke



I can never work out if likefish's choice of Avatar demonstrates a healthy self-depricating sense of humour.  The rather worrying alternatives is that Mike from Spaced is a role model that he seeks to emulate.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 6, 2011)

Bumpage

Hmm just watched the guys channel 4 doco,

Hour long weepy explanation to the ex


plus the line " I'm not a dishonest person"


----------



## laptop (Dec 6, 2011)

Indy says something the Rose Report is out, CPS lawyer for the sack.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 7, 2011)

On a similar theme...

Thames Water using plainclothes private spies to intimidate community campaigners:



> I was approached by a security guard who waited for me to be alone. He didn't show me any ID but whispered to me my full name, he told me I was Italian, where I live and where I work.
> 
> "No one knows where I work. I don't understand how they got access to that kind of information. I felt very threatened.





> Tower Hamlets Labour leader Joshua Peck said: "She can think of no way that this information could have been legitimately obtained."
> 
> Mr Peck said he asked Thames Water if it did background research, adding: "They said they had "no evidence" of the practice but would not expressly say 'No'. Thames Water said the guards were doing 'close protection'. It's troubling if they are investigating residents."
> 
> A Thames Water spokesman said: "We take the safety of our staff very seriously so we have personnel security arrangements in place for all our consultation events." He said of Ms Dunsire's claims: "Our security contractor firmly denies making any such remarks.


----------



## editor (Dec 7, 2011)

My mate (and occasional Offline DJ)  was on the Newsnight piece!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 7, 2011)

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis on another police/CPS failure to disclose, this time with RTS infiltrator Jim Boyling / Sutton.



> ...The latest claims surrounding Boyling centre on the 1996 prosecution of four activists who were stopped and searched on their way to protest against a fox hunt.
> 
> Boyling...was in a van with the other activists, but was not prosecuted, according to Mike Schwarz, a lawyer representing the campaigners who has made the allegations.
> 
> ...


----------



## free spirit (Dec 7, 2011)

was that the civil action that paid for the evading standards print run for J18?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 7, 2011)

That Mike Schwarz is doing rather well out of this debacle. He's a nice bloke though, and he's clearly put in some legwork chasing all this stuff up.


----------



## laptop (Dec 7, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> That Mike Schwarz is doing rather well out of this debacle. He's a nice bloke though, and he's clearly put in some legwork chasing all this stuff up.



Aye, amount he's done beyond the call of duty over the years, from what I hear...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

Former lovers of undercover officers sue police over deceit



> Eight women who say they were duped into forming long-term loving relationships with undercover policemen have started legal action against police chiefs, alleging that they have suffered intense emotional trauma and pain.
> 
> The women say the men "deliberately and knowingly deceived" them into forming intimate relationships of up to nine years by concealing their real identities.



Boyling and Kennedy.


----------



## laptop (Dec 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Former lovers of undercover officers sue police over deceit
> 
> Boyling and Kennedy.


 


> In legal papers sent to police chiefs, the women outline the scale of the alleged deception, saying that the relationships with five named men spanned from 1987 to last year. It is the first time that *two of the men* have been accused of being police spies.
> ...
> 
> She says that another woman "had a relationship with a man known as *Mark Cassidy* between 1995 and 2000". Another woman was "in a relationship with a man known as *John Barker* between 1990 and 1992," she says.



My brain's gone blank. Who they?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 16, 2011)

I find it mental that the big ethical issue around this in the media seems to be the fact he fucked some people whilst undercover, surely the bigger issue is the fucking infiltration of perfectly legal political organisations and movements.

fucking post political pish.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> "...a man known as *John Barker..."*



Subtle.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I find it mental that the big ethical issue around this in the media seems to be the fact he fucked some people whilst undercover, surely the bigger issue is the fucking infiltration of perfectly legal political organisations and movements.
> 
> fucking post political pish.


oh shutup! 
cos it has to be one or the other doesn't it
ffs


----------



## revol68 (Dec 16, 2011)

ddraig said:


> oh shutup!
> cos it has to be one or the other doesn't it
> ffs



well i'd say the political ramifications of infilitrating groups ranks higher than who's a bit pissed off cos he bucked them.

and frankly the bucking is going to be an inherent part of this type of infiltration.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well i'd say the political ramifications of infilitrating groups ranks higher _than who's a bit pissed off cos he bucked them._



 i'm not sure you actually understand what damage he did.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 16, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> i'm not sure you actually understand what damage he did.



what to peoples emotions?

you do realise that people being betrayed, hearts broken, relationships ruined is an inherent part of this type of infiltration.

the real issue is the infiltration of protest organisations, the rest is liberal/legaleese pish and the fact it's such a focus of the media and even some fannies on here says something to me about the current post political age we are meant to live in.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 16, 2011)

"I mean really there should be regulation of this kind of state infiltration to make sure no ones feelings are hurt or their individual rights undermined."


----------



## Riklet (Dec 16, 2011)

heaps of sympathy there eh revol?? .... surely what's important is that this doesn't go away, that people are still writing and rightfully fucking pissed off/hurt over such betrayal and generally shit behaviour from the police towards legit protest.

hope they sue the filth for squillions.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well i'd say the political ramifications of infilitrating groups ranks higher than who's a bit pissed off cos he bucked them.
> 
> and frankly the bucking is going to be an inherent part of this type of infiltration.



I'd say it's the other way round - whilst I don't approve of the state infiltrating protest groups, the fact is that many of them are prepared to engage in activities that are illegal.  They are willing to disrupt society and industry to a significant extent in order to further their own causes.  We should not be surprised if the state looks to intervene in novel ways.  The only thing that shocks me about this aspect is the resources used compared to results achieved.

But agents of the state engaging in long term relationships with activists - with approval or "looking the other way" from bosses - seems about as morally bankrupt as can be.  There is no need.  That's not a part of the "cat and mouse" game that all parties are engaged in.  This isn't James Bond.  It's playing with real peoples emotions.  Sickening.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 16, 2011)

How the fuck is it  'post political' for the people deeply damaged and hurt through covert state actions seek redress thorugh the courts?

I suspect that the cops will try to settle out of court rather then have the whole murky business raked into the public eye.

Either way the compensation they pay out may well end up funding activist groups for a good ten years.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 16, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'd say it's the other way round - whilst I don't approve of the state infiltrating protest groups, the fact is that many of them are prepared to engage in activities that are illegal. They are willing to disrupt society and industry to a significant extent in order to further their own causes.



Yeah, hanging them banners off cooling towers, disrupting the odd shareholders meeting, having an unlisecned street party. Major threat to the state that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'd say it's the other way round - whilst I don't approve of the state infiltrating protest groups, the fact is that many of them are prepared to engage in activities that are illegal. They are willing to disrupt society and industry to a significant extent in order to further their own causes. We should not be surprised if the state looks to intervene in novel ways. The only thing that shocks me about this aspect is the resources used compared to results achieved.
> 
> But agents of the state engaging in long term relationships with activists - with approval or "looking the other way" from bosses - seems about as morally bankrupt as can be. There is no need. That's not a part of the "cat and mouse" game that all parties are engaged in. This isn't James Bond. It's playing with real peoples emotions. Sickening.


The state is the bankruptcy. I hope the claimants get all they can...don't expect the state to do anything else though. It's utter naivety to think it'll just let you be.

Fred Hampton.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 16, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yeah, hanging them banners off cooling towers, disrupting the odd shareholders meeting, having an unlisecned street party. Major threat to the state that.



I did say I didnt think it was a sensible reaction to the actual threat.

Although, as a seperate point, the fact that the state perceives such actions as a credible threat (ie one worth spending many millions of pounds on...) is very interesting.  In many ways a direct compliment to activists nationwide.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 16, 2011)

There isn't any credible threat to the stability of the state from these people, but there is a threat to profits.

Hence the secret police spies.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I did say I didnt think it was a sensible reaction to the actual threat.
> 
> Although, as a seperate point, the fact that the state perceives such actions as a credible threat (ie one worth spending many millions of pounds on...) is very interesting. In many ways a direct compliment to activists nationwide.


It doesn't follow from their actions they perceive them as a credible threat. It could easily follow that it's a doss.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't follow from their actions they perceive them as a credible threat. It could easily follow that it's a doss.



Maybe.  It does seem to be cops getting a bit carried away with themselves.  I suspect, though, that they see it as a threat which, whilst not dangerous atm, is important to keep an eye so that if it looks as though it is gaining momentum, they have the intelligence to try and nip it in the bud.

If i'm right about that (which I think I am...), it means that they have a real fear of such activism.  Not what it might do to 1 power plant tomorrow, but the change to the status quo it might bring in many years.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

They don't. They have resources. They use them. The labour party is more of a threat.

What long term changes are you enivsaging?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They don't. They have resources. They use them. The labour party is more of a threat.
> 
> What long term changes are you enivsaging?



arab spring type change.  revolution type change.  grass-roots change, brought about outside the parliamentary process - the people deciding that they don't want an opportunity once every 5 years to "choose" from one set of leaders not that distinguishable from the others.

Or perhaps just a change to 70's style trade-unionism.

Any sort of change which would reduce the power the state has, I guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

So not what they spent all the money and sex on.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 16, 2011)

keeping an eye, as I said before - watching these movements to see if they appear to be growing.  Thereby giving the state the ability to up their game, to further infiltrate, if activists become a credible threat.

But, yes, also just spunking money because they have it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 17, 2011)

The police infiltrate and monitor activist groups because they are paid to do so, simple as. Any permanant organisation has to justify its continued existence some how. Once you get a commander for example who is an expert on the far left, and as not kept up with changes in organised crime for say five years, their job (or next career progression) could be underthreat if they're redeployed - so it's easier to stay in their comfort zone.


----------



## laptop (Dec 17, 2011)

Guardian said:
			
		

> another woman "had a relationship with a man known as *Mark Cassidy* between 1995 and 2000". Another woman was "in a relationship with a man known as *John Barker* between 1990 and 1992," she says.



Again: who they?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 17, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The police infiltrate and monitor activist groups because they are paid to do so, simple as. Any permanant organisation has to justify its continued existence some how. Once you get a commander for example who is an expert on the far left, and as not kept up with changes in organised crime for say five years, their job (or next career progression) could be underthreat if they're redeployed - so it's easier to stay in their comfort zone.



And why would anyone (minister, treasury etc) consider monitoring of these groups to be justification of police budgets?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 17, 2011)

In the case of the kingsnorth protest, I'd reckon that any group threatening to shut down a power station would be deemed a threat to national security


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 17, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> And why would anyone (minister, treasury etc) consider monitoring of these groups to be justification of police budgets?



I think primarily because such groups, insofar as they are ever effective, are typically effective at disrupting businesses, usually unethical businesses.

The mainstream political parties and especially ministers and senior civil servants who may be looking forward to fat directorships on leaving office, are therefore keen to employ any available methods to protect business interests. Even if it means using tactics which were previously only applied to actual terrorists. Indeed, a great deal of Blair-era anti-terrorist legislation consisted of deliberately conflating nutcases who blow up tube trains with hippies who disrupt unethical businesses revenue streams.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 17, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> In the case of the kingsnorth protest, I'd reckon that any group threatening to shut down a power station would be deemed a threat to national security


why?

the UK grid is designed to cope with the immediate shut down of any power station on the grid, and can certainly cope without kingsnorth for the time any activists might conceivably shut it down for, so there's no threat to national security that I can see.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> My brain's gone blank. Who they?


didn't ring any bells for me either but this post in indymedia gives info on  mark cassidy http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/02/473378.html

Hackney Community Defence Association, AFA and Red Action apparently.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 17, 2011)

nothing obvious via google for John Barker.

Probably a coincidence, but there is an article about an ex copper called John Barker who died in 2004 while working as a contractor in Iraq. The reason I'm mentioning it being that the article states he left kent police 14 years ago (ie around 1990/91), the timing of which looks a bit too coincidental to dismiss entirely, and working as a security consultant is an obvious next step for ex undercover coppers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3986671.stm


----------



## rioted (Dec 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The labour party is more of a threat.


To the state? Or to the working class?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't follow from their actions they perceive them as a credible threat. It could easily follow that it's a doss.



Yep. I don't know if the pathetic undercover operation against the Arizona Hells Angels got any publicity in the UK, but basically the Feds spent tens of millions of dollars pretending to be bikers.  They ended up with a couple of convictions for marijuana possession and little else.

Laughing all the way to the bank, living a fantasy life on taxpayers' dollars.  If I were a cop, I'd be doing the same.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special42/articles/0123hellsangels23.html?&wired


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2012)

Undercover police had children with activists



> Two undercover police officers secretly fathered children with political campaigners they had been sent to spy on and later disappeared completely from the lives of their offspring, the Guardian can reveal.





> One of the spies was Bob Lambert, who has already admitted that he tricked a second woman into having a long-term relationship with him, as part of an intricate attempt to bolster his credibility as a committed campaigner.
> 
> The second police spy followed the progress of his child and the child's mother by reading confidential police reports which tracked the mother's political activities and life.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 20, 2012)

Fucking hell.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2012)

takes a special kind of sicko
or just well embedded in the plod mentality


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 20, 2012)

speechless (but wanted to register my distaste)

Just...fuck!


----------



## tommers (Jan 20, 2012)

Was just going to post that. Crazy stuff.  Poor kids.  Wanker dads. Especially the first guy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2012)

This needs a new thread. Hang on.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 4, 2012)

*HMIC review of police “domestic extremism” intelligence-gathering units*

report
http://networkforpolicemonitoring.org.uk/?p=598


> Elsewhere “a network of anarchist groups set up to disrupt the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles,” is cited as a positive “intelligence outcome” of Mark Kennedy’s undercover NPIOU deployment. The operation against those G8 summit protesters resulted in a lot of convictions, generally for minor public order offences along the lines of obstructing the highway, that went no further than the local sheriffs’ (magistrates) courts. (As anyone who was in the press gallery in the sherrifs courts in Edinburgh, Sterling and Perth during the summit can tell you.) Hardly “serious criminality.”
> 
> There is also the somewhat hilarious suggestion in the report that all this surveillance on people who just regularly go on demos is needed to aid in “protecting the rights of those who wish to protest peacefully” be “differentiating” between peaceful protesters and bad people.
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (Mar 5, 2012)

Hmm. They've just jailed a woman for pretending to be a man in sexual relationships. Useful precedent?


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 5, 2012)

I wondered that too.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2012)

Not exactly high profile this release eh?

Watchdog criticises police over Mark Kennedy's undercover tapes



> IPCC finds a collective responsibility for failure to disclose undercover officer's recordings to activists


 
This is the full report (pdf) - the summary on the IPCC website doesn't mention Kennedy in another attempted whitewash.

edit:in the environment section ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2012)

Hmmm...now implicated in the tarnac trials...


----------



## krink (Apr 19, 2012)

did you also see the comment about him being involved with the Icelandic green movement. he was everywhere. the more you hear about this piece of crap the more you hate him and his backers.


----------



## manny-p (Apr 19, 2012)

krink said:


> did you also see the comment about him being involved with the Icelandic green movement. he was everywhere. the more you hear about this piece of crap the more you hate him and his backers.


Yep. What a fucking creep.


----------



## rekil (Jun 1, 2012)

Linkedin profile. Via Indymedia. 4 real?



> Mark Kennedy's Experience
> 
> Consultant
> Densus Group
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 1, 2012)

Difficult to tell with only 14 connections and no testimonials, especially out of networks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

I wonder if someone fancies contacting him about some 'work'?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if someone fancies contacting him about some 'work'?


 
Get Longdog on the case


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

Now there's a very good idea!


----------



## starfish2000 (Jun 13, 2012)

But the Establishment have been infiltrating, leftists and trade unionists and activists for years. Isolated action is the only way forward. Keep it in your head until the time


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

Thank you for calling 0800 State The Obvious - please note that you appear to require 0871 FFS. Please hold the line whilst we wait to transfer you to an available operator - Your Contribution Is Important To Us.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

Meanwhile, the Kennedy LinkedIn profile has been dissected a little further:

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com...nnedys-current-business-activities-in-the-us/


----------



## Kidda (Jun 13, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Meanwhile, the Kennedy LinkedIn profile has been dissected a little further:
> 
> http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com...nnedys-current-business-activities-in-the-us/


 
LOL not very covert sticking yourself up on LinkedIn is it?


----------



## teqniq (Jun 13, 2012)

apols if this has been posted elsewhere...

Undercover policeman 'fire-bombed shop,' MPs told



> An MP has used parliamentary privilege to name an undercover police officer who allegedly planted a fire bomb at a London department store in 1987.
> 
> Green MP Caroline Lucas said a jailed man, Geoff Sheppard, believed police officer Bob Lambert planted a device.
> 
> ...


 

Graun article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/13/police


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 13, 2012)

starfish2000 said:


> But the Establishment have been infiltrating, leftists and trade unionists and activists for years. Isolated action is the only way forward. Keep it in your head until the time


 
Fool


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

That's certainly more succinct.


----------



## starfish2000 (Jun 14, 2012)

Its true though, MI5 had a union rep at the Dagenham plant in the 60s.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 14, 2012)

starfish2000 said:


> Its true though, MI5 had a union rep at the Dagenham plant in the 60s.


 
Really??!! FUCK!!! teh fedz are spy1ng 0n us....


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 14, 2012)

Let's break it down:


starfish2000 said:


> But the Establishment have been infiltrating, leftists and trade unionists and activists for years. Isolated action is the only way forward. Keep it in your head until the time


 
...would be...



DaveCinzano said:


> 0800 State The Obvious


 
Whilst:


starfish2000 said:


> Isolated action is the only way forward. Keep it in your head until the time


 
...would be...



DaveCinzano said:


> 0871 FFS


 
Why?

See http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/anarchists-sabotage-railway-signalling-in-bristol.293927/ etc.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 22, 2012)

Mark has a new job apparently:




> A former Scotland Yard police officer whose eight years undercover with eco-warriors led to the collapse of a criminal trial is working for a US company that targets anti-capitalist demonstrators, the Standard can reveal.
> 
> Mark Kennedy is a consultant for the Densus Group, a Dallas-based firm run by a former British Army officer that once gathered intelligence on protesters at a G20 summit.


 
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-activists-7872580.html#.T-QCrzpdR5I.facebook


----------



## ddraig (Jun 22, 2012)

post #1296


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2012)

From Paul Lewis:

Breaking: The director of public prosecutions inviting 29 more activists to appeal convictions over role of undercover cop, Mark Kennedy

DPP Keir Starmer has asked the Met to look into records of "all operations involving Mark Kennedy that led to convictions".


----------



## elbows (Jul 15, 2012)

Is there another thread for related matters involving other undercover stuff or is this the most suitable one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jul/15/glastonbury-festival-police-spy-operation



> Police carried out surveillance on political campaigners while they were at the Glastonbury Festival, newly released documents show.
> Details of their activities were recorded in a clandestine database run by the secretive police operation which has infiltrated a network of spies into political groups for 40 years.
> Police logged how the campaigners had set up a stall at the festival and were selling what police termed "political publications and merchandise of an XLW anti-capitalist nature". The letters XLW are understood to mean "extreme left-wing".





> Simon Wellings, one of the undercover officers who has been unmasked, infiltrated the anti-capitalist group which was spied on at Glastonbury.
> Evidence of the surveillance has been obtained by Guy Taylor, a 45-year-old activist working for the group, Globalise Resistance, following a request under the data protection act.
> He obtained his file from the database which shows that police identified his presence at 27 demonstrations for causes such as anti-racism, opposition to the Iraq War and climate change between 2006 and 2011. One entry records how "Globalise Resistance had a campaigns stall at the Glastonbury Festival" in 2009 and that "this stall was selling political publications and merchandise of a XLW anti-capitalist nature".
> Police had established that it was Taylor who gained approval from the festival organisers to set up the stall.
> ...


And was the following discussed at the time?


> Last year, Newsnight reported that Wellings's real role was revealed following a blunder. He inadvertently phoned a campaigner from the Global Resistance group on his mobile phone while analysing photographs of protesters with a police officer at a police station.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 15, 2012)

XLW? Xtra Large Weight?


----------



## elbows (Jul 15, 2012)

Xtrremely Lairy Worker?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 15, 2012)

"If they need to know the plans and schemes of anti-capitalists, the worst place to look is Glastonbury as we were rarely in a fit state to plan the downfall of a parish council let alone the world financial system as we know it."


----------



## ddraig (Jul 15, 2012)

.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 15, 2012)

The green fields have long been a playground for intel officers. Lots of materials for reports they can type up in the early hours. Imagine, a field of intoxicated people talking about politics with a hint of rebellion. Friendly folk who are quite happy to have conversations with apparently like minded people. 
Small teams of intel. Some trainers with  new recruits.  Stumbling small talk to find the name, place of birth, nationality, D.O.B. Trainers scan the tents for another pot. int. source to feed the team. 

I have had at least one very strange conversation with these in the field- and that was at least ten years ago.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2012)

kenny g said:


> The green fields have long been a playground for intel officers.


 
Obviously.

But there's a world of difference between "obviously" and "the documents prove it here, here and here". Well done to Taylor for getting this - even if it is part of some kind of continuing Monopolize Resistance thingy.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2012)

anyone got a photo of that GR undercover guy?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2012)

free spirit said:


> anyone got a photo of that GR undercover guy?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2012)

looks like a twat then, but I don't think our paths crossed.

I steered clear of the GR lot anyway tbh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2012)

kenny g said:


> The green fields have long been a playground for intel officers. Lots of materials for reports they can type up in the early hours. Imagine, a field of intoxicated people talking about politics with a hint of rebellion. Friendly folk who are quite happy to have conversations with apparently like minded people.
> Small teams of intel. Some trainers with new recruits. Stumbling small talk to find the name, place of birth, nationality, D.O.B. Trainers scan the tents for another pot. int. source to feed the team.
> 
> I have had at least one very strange conversation with these in the field- and that was at least ten years ago.


 
If I wanted information, about anything, the last place I would go to get it would be the green fields at glastonbury. If I wanted complete drivel on the other hand, I would look no further than the green fields at glastonbury. I might get a mandolin lesson from a man wearing his beard as a hat while I was at it.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If I wanted information, about anything, the last place I would go to get it would be the green fields at glastonbury. If I wanted complete drivel on the other hand, I would look no further than the green fields at glastonbury. I might get a mandolin lesson from a man wearing his beard as a hat while I was at it.


I've not been for years, but I reckon it probably was a better place for them to gather intel in the late 90s, when a lot of activists either had working blags in one way or another, or just crashed the fence - for me it really was like an annual meet up with others alsewhere in the country doing similar stuff for a few years, but that changed once the fence went up, travellers field went and they started getting stricter with the working blags etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If I wanted information, about anything, the last place I would go to get it would be the green fields at glastonbury. If I wanted complete drivel on the other hand, I would look no further than the green fields at glastonbury. I might get a mandolin lesson from a man wearing his beard as a hat while I was at it.


 
The post you quoted looked like it was by someone who either once was 'in the know' or never has been, but wanted to appear as if he was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If I wanted information, about anything, the last place I would go to get it would be the green fields at glastonbury. If I wanted complete drivel on the other hand, I would look no further than the green fields at glastonbury. I might get a mandolin lesson from a man wearing his beard as a hat while I was at it.


there are no green fields at glastonbury as a quick look at any picture of the festival will confirm.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 16, 2012)

As archived posts will attest, I have not been to Glastonbury since the regime change and arrival of the mega fence. The Green Fields were I am sure a good  source for soft intel.


----------



## keybored (Jul 17, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> lol! He actually is boss-eyed - we should have known....


He was codenamed "The Chameleon" for more reasons than one, you know.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 17, 2012)

The tarnac affair seems a fair use of an undercover cop group talking or planning to fuck about with railways legit use of undercover ops. If only to discover are they actually serious or is it bullshit.
  or Mi5 justfying free galstonbury tickets . "its a training exercise boss they can practice there outdoor survival skills as well "
I've seen even more dubious excuses for jollies
  The whole mark stone affair is dubious because it was massive use of resources for limited value.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2012)

More on Kennedy and tarnac today here (translation).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 8, 2012)

The _Guardian_ version (en anglais):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/08/mark-kennedy-accused-fantasist-french?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Mapped (Nov 8, 2012)

Someone put a linkedin link to him on here before. I stupidly clicked on it and he's viewed my profile a few times  It keeps suggesting that I connect with him. If ever i need a scumbag with no morals for hire I'll know where to look


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 20, 2012)

> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 at the High Court, the legal action against the Metropolitan Police over undercover policing will have its first day in court. Lawyers for the claimants will be battling against a bid by the Met for the case to be heard in secret. Supporters of the claimants today issued a statement condemning the Met’s bid for secrecy.
> The unprecedented legal action is being brought against the Metropolitan Police by Birnberg Peirce and partners on behalf of eight women deceived into long term intimate relationships with undercover officers who were infiltrating political movements. The hearing on Wednesday 21 and Thursday 22 November will concern an application regarding three of the claimants, and a further three claimants from a separate case being brought by Tucker’s solicitors. The Metropolitan Police are attempting to have the cases heard in secret by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). [1]
> 
> In a statement today, supporters of the eight women said:
> ...


(from http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/?p=312)

unfortunately i'm a couple of hundred miles too far away to get down there tomorrow and thursday


----------



## teqniq (Nov 20, 2012)

Fuck the Met.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 20, 2012)

good luck to those women tomorrow and Thursday 
hope they get some justice


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2012)

Interestingly, the Met has offered a phone number for journalists having difficulty covering an event (unspecified) tomorrow... wonder whether it's this?


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 20, 2012)

laptop said:


> Interestingly, the Met has offered a phone number for journalists having difficulty covering an event (unspecified) tomorrow... wonder whether it's this?


could be the student demo..


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> could be the student demo..


 
Ah.

Ta!


----------



## two sheds (Nov 25, 2012)

My word



> A former spy is suing the Metropolitan police for failing to "protect" him from falling in love with one of the environmental activists whose movement he infiltrated.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/25/spy-mark-kennedy-sues-police

Poor flower  .


----------



## ddraig (Nov 25, 2012)

absolutely NO SHAME


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 25, 2012)

two sheds said:


> My word
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Good, though I don't think it will turn out too well for him or the police. He could well open a Pandoras box here and find he can't shut the lid....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 25, 2012)

two sheds said:


> My word
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
He didn't love her enough to own up to being a copper though did he? 

Unspeakable cunt. To think I used to drink with him, all those missed opportunities to kick his traitor teeth down his traitor fucking throat


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

....this circus will overshadow the claims of the women involved


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 25, 2012)

remarkable timing, isn't it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> remarkable timing, isn't it?


 
Actually, the timing apart from other things reveals to me just how selfish MK actually is. Whilst I don't doubt that working uncover is incredibly stressful and trauma inducing when it gets to this level etc...to make this case now, regardless of anything else tells me he believes his case is just as important as those who were in contact with him. For me, that is disrespectful and simply does not assure me he has acknowledged the absolute betrayal he engaged in by having such intimate relationships as part of his work as a undercover cop.


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 25, 2012)

well said.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Actually, the timing apart from other things reveals to me just how selfish MK actually is. Whilst I don't doubt that working uncover is incredibly stressful and trauma inducing when it gets to this level etc...to make this case now, regardless of anything else tells me he believes his case is just as important as those who were in contact with him. For me, that is disrespectful and simply does not assure me he has acknowledged the absolute betrayal he engaged in by having such intimate relationships as part of his work as a undercover cop.


 
I'm sure his situation was traumatic and stressful for him, but unlike the people he and his pals took advantage of he was paid handsomely for his trouble, was fully aware of what he was getting into and could have left whenever he felt like it. If he had any sympathy for the people whose lives he ruined, if he ever loved the people he claims he loved, he wouldn't be doing this now. But then if he had any human decency he'd never have done these things in the first place.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2012)

Surely if anything he should be in the dock for taking advantage of members of the public whilst working in a professional capacity the same as a doctor or psychiatrist would if they shagged their patients or clients? 

He's a cheeky bastard for sure.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Actually, the timing apart from other things reveals to me just how selfish MK actually is. Whilst I don't doubt that working uncover is incredibly stressful and trauma inducing when it gets to this level etc...to make this case now, regardless of anything else tells me he believes his case is just as important as those who were in contact with him.


 
Judging by the _MoS_ article, his line of thinking, both then and now, is essentially the 'they were all a bunch of slags and asking for it' defence of a man accused of rape:



> Kennedy says he had to have sex with the protesters to protect his cover. ‘The world of eco-activists is rife with promiscuity. Everyone sleeps with everyone else. If I hadn’t had sex they would have rumbled me as an informant,’ he said.


 
Oh, and PS:



> Kennedy is now working for a private security firm carrying out threat assessment for firms in Britain and America. He splits his time between rented homes on both sides of the Atlantic, but says he has found it impossible to live a ‘normal’ life.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Surely if anything he should be in the dock for taking advantage of members of the public whilst working in a professional capacity the same as a doctor or psychiatrist would if they shagged their patients or clients?
> 
> He's a cheeky bastard for sure.


 
I don't think there's a criminal charge that can be brought against him under UK law (not one related to sexual relationships anyway, perverting the course of justice might well have some traction) but his victims could sue him personally instead of the met. I guess the reason they're not is that they want to pool their resources with victims of other undercover rapists policemen.

But yes, I really don't think 100,000 pounds compensation is quite the punishment this creep deserves. Sleeping with one eye open in Wormwood Scrubs until the day Satan calls him home would be more like it.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Nov 25, 2012)

the bad guys remain the Association of Chief Police Officers who ran him as a secret policeman, all nicely arranged so there is no one to take responsibility, even in a single police force. I think the management of the police needs to be reviewed....he was just obeying orders. Presumably he was recruited, just like suicide bombers, for particulr psychological traits.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Nov 25, 2012)

If it happened again would we have anelected police commissioner chappie to take responsibility?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 25, 2012)

pseudonarcissus said:


> the bad guys remain the Association of Chief Police Officers who ran him as a secret policeman, all nicely arranged so there is no one to take responsibility, even in a single police force. I think the management of the police needs to be reviewed....he was just obeying orders. Presumably he was recruited, just like suicide bombers, for particulr psychological traits.


 
That seems to be Kennedy's angle too. To the point where he is apparently unwilling even to take responsibility for who he chose to sleep with. 

In terms of the actual role Kennedy was asked to perform, that is absolutely the responsibility of the senior pigs who deployed him. As for obeying orders, I seriously doubt he was ordered to have sexual relationships with the people he was spying on. His own statements reveal as much, with all his talk of feeling obliged to put it about as much as possible in order to fit in. 

I do get the impression that Kennedy is a pretty damaged individual at this point, but I suspect his apparent persecution complex has arisen as a means to protect him from his own feelings of guilt. Oddly enough, I still find myself completely lacking in sympathy. Perhaps he should ask himself what exactly he thought was going to happen when he first took the job.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 25, 2012)

Given that Kennedy was a protégé of Bob Lambert, and given the many similarities in what could be variously described as either their personal failings, ethical shortcomings or professional tradecraft, one has to ask oneself just how innocent he is.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 25, 2012)

Surely the whole premise of his job amounted to perverting the course of justice?

I mean, that's what the ACPO paid him to do, quite explicitly as far as I can tell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't think there's a criminal charge that can be brought against him under UK law (not one related to sexual relationships anyway, perverting the course of justice might well have some traction) but his victims could sue him personally instead of the met. I guess the reason they're not is that they want to pool their resources with victims of other undercover rapists policemen.
> 
> But yes, I really don't think 100,000 pounds compensation is quite the punishment this creep deserves. Sleeping with one eye open in Wormwood Scrubs until the day Satan calls him home would be more like it.


what about both eyes open sleeping with the fishes?


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2012)

> Kennedy says he had to have sex with the protesters to protect his cover. ‘The world of eco-activists is rife with promiscuity. Everyone sleeps with everyone else. If I hadn’t had sex they would have rumbled me as an informant,’ he said.


 Strange that I never got rumbled then.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 26, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Surely the whole premise of his job amounted to perverting the course of justice?
> 
> I mean, that's what the ACPO paid him to do, quite explicitly as far as I can tell.



And surely entrapment if he was in any way involved in organising actions.


----------



## albionism (Nov 26, 2012)

Can you believe this ghastly fuck-shite. Just when i thought 
he couldn't be any more of a wrong-un. No shame at all.


----------



## albionism (Nov 26, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> ....this circus will overshadow the claims of the women involved


Maybe that's the point.  Quite possibly put up to it. The traitorous git knows no shame.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 26, 2012)

Random said:


> Strange that I never got rumbled then.


 
Me neither


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 26, 2012)

Random said:


> Strange that I never got rumbled then.


 
My thoughts exactly.

In fact Kennedy was among a small group of alpha male types hovering around the activist scene at the time, hitting on anything with a pulse and generally being slimy cunts. To say that everyone was promiscuous however, well that's just bollocks. There wasn't a culture of it, but there were certain people who used the activist scene (and particularly the high turnover of impressionable young men and women who got involved in it) as a way to shag as many people as possible. IME the behaviour of these people was damaging not only to the activist scene itself but to the wellbeing of many of the people involved as well. But like I say, it was just a handful of people that were responsible. And Kennedy was one of them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 26, 2012)

albionism said:


> Maybe that's the point. Quite possibly put up to it. The traitorous git knows no shame.


 
Nothing this fucker did would surprise me at this point.


----------



## malatesta32 (Nov 26, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I do get the impression that Kennedy is a pretty damaged individual at this point.


 
not damaged enough!


----------



## malatesta32 (Nov 26, 2012)

'His wife, Edel, has filed for divorce, and is seeking compensation for "emotional trauma". "When my cover was blown it destroyed my life. I lost my job, my girlfriend and my reputation," he said. "I started self-harming and went to a shrink who diagnosed me with post-traumatic stress syndrome.' 

some slight justice at least.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 26, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> 'His wife, Edel, has filed for divorce, and is seeking compensation for "emotional trauma". "When my cover was blown it destroyed my life. I lost my job, my girlfriend and my reputation," he said. "I started self-harming and went to a shrink who diagnosed me with post-traumatic stress syndrome.'
> 
> some slight justice at least.


 
Selfish cow, can't she see that Kennedy is the real victim here?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 26, 2012)

I wonder how much of the £50-100k he's demanding he intends to use towards the support of his kids? Or the £2+mn he's already been paid?


----------



## albionism (Nov 26, 2012)

Pity he didn't self-harm himself to death


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> 'His wife, Edel, has filed for divorce, and is seeking compensation for "emotional trauma". "When my cover was blown it destroyed my life. I lost my job, my girlfriend and my reputation," he said. "I started self-harming and went to a shrink who diagnosed me with post-traumatic stress syndrome.'
> 
> some slight justice at least.


 
I don't swallow it. He obviously lacks empathy, how else could he do what he did to the activists and to his family?

Fuck him and his nauseating sob story.

I'm sure he had this planned out as a strategy to deal with the fallout if things went tits up.


----------



## malatesta32 (Nov 26, 2012)

yep, the guys a sociopath!
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility
Incapacity to experienceguilt
Markedly prone toblameothers or to offer plausiblerationalizationsfor the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. (Wiki) 
and funnily enough no one wants to help him, plod must have as little resepct for him as we do!


----------



## albionism (Nov 26, 2012)

Certainly is psychopathic


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2012)

albionism said:


> Certainly is psychopathic


 
I can of course see how that description _fits_ this example, this individual...what I am most aware of right now though is just how psychopathic and abusive the 'system' is, which allows/expects not only a person to be hired, sent undercover, but encouraged/allowed to do what he did and now sue for PTSD.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 17, 2013)

Well well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/17/judge-police-spy-case-open


----------



## ddraig (Jan 17, 2013)

come on the judge!
nothing to hide...


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 17, 2013)

The case of the women who had long term relationships with men who were undercover police officers will be heard by an Investogatory Powers Tribunal.

They do not get to see the evidence for the police. They do not get to be at the hearing. They do not get given the reasons for the decision. They do not get to appeal. Over 99% of IPT cases find in favour of the government.

Some common law claims also brought by the women (including for deceit and misfeasance in public office) *will* be heard in open court once the IPT is finished.

apologies for the c & p


> The High Court has today granted an application by the Metropolitan Police for a secret hearing over the claims brought against them under the Human Rights Act, arising from undercover officers engaging in intimate long term relationships with women whilst undercover. The Claimants, who were involved in protest movements, were deceived into intimate sexual relationships by officers, including Mark Kennedy. One relationship lasted six years and all the Claimants suffered significant psychological damage as a consequence of those officers intruding deeply into their private lives. Lawyers for the women said that their clients are “outraged” at the High Court’s decision today that the claims should be heard in the secret Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
> 
> The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is a little known tribunal set up under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA, 2000) to deal with claims brought under the Human Rights Act against the police and other security services.
> Mr Justice Tugenhadt rejected the police submissions that the IPT was the appropriate tribunal for hearing common law claims also brought by the women (including for deceit and misfeasance in public office). However, the common law claims can be heard in the open jurisdiction of the High Court, but will be put on hold pending the verdict of the IPT.
> ...


 
and yes, you read right. the judge really did cite _james bond_ as evidence that this has been going on for a while.. 

http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/?p=363


----------



## ddraig (Jan 17, 2013)

oh for fucks sake  
'if it's good enough for 007'


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 17, 2013)

thanks tufty, that's interesting information, if very depressing.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 17, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> In fact Kennedy was among a small group of alpha male types hovering around the activist scene at the time, hitting on anything with a pulse and generally being slimy cunts. To say that everyone was promiscuous however, well that's just bollocks. There wasn't a culture of it, but there were certain people who used the activist scene (and particularly the high turnover of impressionable young men and women who got involved in it) as a way to shag as many people as possible.


 
It's not just activists, this type of Alpha male can be seen trying to hit on women in all kinds of different social groups, using all kinds of different scenes in an attempt to get their end away. You have to expect it and be prepared for it, to ensure that people aren't at risk of being hurt. We had one in a group I'm a member of a few years ago. Freaked my friend out by calling her at home constantly. Freaked me out by stripping off his shirt in meetings and prancing about.  . So someone had words with him and pointed out that it wasn't a dating agency. He didn't hang around long after that, thankfully.


----------



## ymu (Jan 17, 2013)

Not just alpha males tbf; women can cause the same sorts of problems.

Still very disappointed that this legal action is all about the women. Male activists were abused by female officers also. But of course, men don't have feelings - only women could feel violated by sex. 

I'm not accusing this group of having deliberately excluded the male victims - I don't know why they are not there - but it leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. Still looking for insider information on why, if anyone knows. Ta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> It's not just activists, this type of Alpha male can be seen trying to hit on women in all kinds of different social groups, using all kinds of different scenes in an attempt to get their end away. You have to expect it and be prepared for it, to ensure that people aren't at risk of being hurt. We had one in a group I'm a member of a few years ago. Freaked my friend out by calling her at home constantly. Freaked me out by stripping off his shirt in meetings and prancing about.  . So someone had words with him and pointed out that it wasn't a dating agency. He didn't hang around long after that, thankfully.


if he's an alpha male how come he never really got anywhere in the police hierarchy? i would have thought a defining mark of the alpha male is ambition. what you've got with kennedy isn't an alpha male but a manipulative and devious individual. you make it sound like there aren't any lefty/anarcho alpha males - when we all know that there are - and that when one appears we all fall down and worship him.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if he's an alpha male how come he never really got anywhere in the police hierarchy? i would have thought a defining mark of the alpha male is ambition. what you've got with kennedy isn't an alpha male but a manipulative and devious individual. you make it sound like there aren't any lefty/anarcho alpha males - when we all know that there are - and that when one appears we all fall down and worship him.


Not at all - the poster I replied to said, 'alpha male,' I guess I'd actually term it, 'slimeball who keeps hitting on girls.' Or, manipulative and devious, as you say.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 17, 2013)

I still dont see the need for the undercover antics its hardly al qaida?

FFS you'd get most of the "intel" for what it was worth by buying a round of drinks.
  He got to live out walty mitty undercover fantasies with zero threat and shag hippy chicks and achieved nothing of any value.
       Unless some cops actually belive some "activists" line of bullshit


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> The case of the women who had long term relationships with men who were undercover police officers will be heard by an Investogatory Powers Tribunal.
> 
> They do not get to see the evidence for the police. They do not get to be at the hearing. They do not get given the reasons for the decision. They do not get to appeal. Over 99% of IPT cases find in favour of the government.


I await the SWP's opinion on such a system with interest.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> Not just alpha males tbf; women can cause the same sorts of problems.
> 
> Still very disappointed that this legal action is all about the women. Male activists were abused by female officers also. But of course, men don't have feelings - only women could feel violated by sex.
> 
> I'm not accusing this group of having deliberately excluded the male victims - I don't know why they are not there - but it leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. Still looking for insider information on why, if anyone knows. Ta.


 
One of the people involved in the court case is male IIRC.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2013)

likesfish said:


> I still dont see the need for the undercover antics its hardly al qaida?


 
Arse-covering, simple as that. None of the officers involved are still undercover and after the Mark Kennedy/Ratcliffe-on-Soar fiasco it seems unlikely that are any ongoing criminal investigations as a result of their activities.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 17, 2013)

likesfish said:


> He got to live out walty mitty undercover fantasies with zero threat


As did his bosses. The whole programme was carry on policing.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2013)

What Kennedy did, right up to and including the use of intimate friendships and sexual relationships, mirrors that of Boyle, and of Boyle's professional mentor Lambert.

It suggests that aside from the individual acts of impropriety or deviousness, there is a shared tradecraft underlying such behaviour - and given the large sums of money and manpower devoted to these lengthy undercover operations, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that such shared tradecraft must be taught and learned collectively, and not some personally repertoire independently developed by individuals despite extensive oversight and support from experienced officers working to high levels of clearance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> One of the people involved in the court case is male IIRC.


yes, mark kennedy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> As did his bosses. The whole programme was carry on policing.


you haven't seen 'carry on constable' have you? can you see sid james et al stooping to the sort of thing kennedy was getting up to?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you make it sound like there aren't any lefty/anarcho alpha males - when we all know that there are - and that when one appears we all fall down and worship him.


 
What new madness is this?

Bowing down and worshiping alpha males?  What are you on about?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, mark kennedy


 
I meant one of the wronged parties. Seven women and a man I think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> What new madness is this?
> 
> Bowing down and worshiping alpha males? What are you on about?


you thick fuck. it's not meant literally.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What new madness is this?
> 
> Bowing down and worshiping alpha males?  What are you on about?



Sarcasm detector on the blink?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Sarcasm detector on the blink?


his fucking brain's on the blink.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you thick fuck. it's not meant literally.


 
Oh really?  How's it meant then?  Ironically?  Because it doesn't sound very ironic to me:



Pickman's model said:


> you make it sound like there aren't any lefty/anarcho alpha males - when we all know that there are - and that when one appears we all fall down and worship him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh really? How's it meant then? Ironically? Because it doesn't sound very ironic to me:


it's hyperbole, a recognised rhetorical device. it was not meant ironically, which is doubtless why it didn't sound ironic to you.

for someone who affects to be an academick you're remarkably thick.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's hyperbole, a recognised rhetorical device.


 
I see. 

So your true meaning was that actually there _aren't _any Lefty/anarcho alpha males, and even if there were, you certainly wouldn't bow down and worship them, oh no.

Is that what your "hyperbole" was attempting to convey?


----------



## ymu (Jan 17, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> One of the people involved in the court case is male IIRC.


Excellent! Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I see.
> 
> So your true meaning was that actually there _aren't _any Lefty/anarcho alpha males, and even if there were, you certainly wouldn't bow down and worship them, oh no.
> 
> Is that what your "hyperbole" was attempting to convey?


the only hyperbole was the bowing down to worship bit.

of course if anyone said they were bowing down to worship you we'd know they were talking hyperbolicks.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the only hyperbole was the bowing down to worship bit.


 
O-_kay._

So you were actually saying that, yes, there _are _lots of lefty/anarcho alpha males; but no, you do not bow down and worship them, preferring to display your respect in a less obviously homosexual manner.

Is that pretty much the size of it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> O-_kay._
> 
> So you were actually saying that, yes, there _are _lots of lefty/anarcho alpha males; but no, you do not bow down and worship them, preferring to display your respect in a less obviously homosexual manner.
> 
> Is that pretty much the size of it?


tell you what, why don't you read the post again and if after that you're still having difficulty then fuck off.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, why don't you read the post again and if after that you're still having difficulty then fuck off.


 
This will be a good test of your thesis, provided you can convince us the cap fits:



Pickman's model said:


> you make it sound like there aren't any lefty/anarcho alpha males - when we all know that there are - and that when one appears we all fall down and worship him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> This will be a good test of your thesis, provided you can convince us the cap fits:








oh i know


----------



## likesfish (Jan 17, 2013)

Tradecraft and the sort of shitty behaviour  mark got up to fair enough employed against high stakes bad guys organised crime terrorists that sort of level where lives are at stake.
 Spending the time money and screwing with peoples lives because they do a bit of minor direct action which at worst would be slightly embarrassing.
 No history or threats of violence not even damage of property what next drones and missiles to be depolyed against critical mass?


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> Not just alpha males tbf; women can cause the same sorts of problems.
> 
> Still very disappointed that this legal action is all about the women. Male activists were abused by female officers also. But of course, men don't have feelings - only women could feel violated by sex.
> 
> I'm not accusing this group of having deliberately excluded the male victims - I don't know why they are not there - but it leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. Still looking for insider information on why, if anyone knows. Ta.


 



SpookyFrank said:


> I meant one of the wronged parties. Seven women and a man I think.


ten women (i think) and one man launched the original action.

apparently it's just the human rights elements of the cases brought by three women who had relationships with Mark Kennedy going to tribunal - the others have no legal rights claim as, whilst similarly violated, it was before the Human Rights Act came into force (i'm nicking someone else's words there, so apologies if i've got it wrong).

the common law offences (including deceit and malfeasance in public office) are still going to be heard in a public court, after the tribunal is finished.


----------



## newbie (Jan 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> Excellent! Thanks.


fyi, the position of the man is not quite the same as that of the women concerned



> The boyfriend of one of the women is also seeking damages from the police as a result of Jacob's relationship with his then partner.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21061539


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

Oh, so it's not one of the blokes who was abused by a copper?

Still wanna know why we're not hearing from them. The crapness of our cultural attitudes to sex is sufficient explanation, but the activists themselves seem to have been pushing the "abused women" line in all the press releases and protests I have seen.

If the men have been excluded, intentionally or otherwise, this needs to be addressed. It's a consequence of a one-sided feminism that sees something wrong with stereotyping women but not with stereotyping men. They're always up for it, right? What could they possibly have to complain about?


----------



## nogojones (Jan 18, 2013)

Maybe the general take is that they get more sympathy and a better chance of justice this way


----------



## newbie (Jan 18, 2013)

ddraig said:


> oh for fucks sake
> 'if it's good enough for 007'


tbh I thought that was quite perceptive.  because (as the judge put it) the Bond stories did not dwell on the "psychological harm he might have done to the women concerned" they've conditioned us to see such behaviour from the point of view of the spy, the hero.  In fact, of course, the pov of the victim, who was duped, has to be considered and outside the realms of ludicrous fiction, the harm done to them has to be taken very seriously indeed.

Bond is hardly the first fictional character to behave like that, but this case is apparently the first time anyone has seriously questioned whether it's heroic or utterly disgraceful.


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

nogojones said:


> Maybe the general take is that they get more sympathy and a better chance of justice this way


And fuck the men? Well, they do love it, after all.

If there was any kind of conscious thinking of that sort, I would be horrified. I'm currently assuming that it wasn't deliberate, just culturally ingrained behaviour. Of the sort that activists should be challenging.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 18, 2013)

they may not be thinking "fuck the men", but they might be thinking that a jury would think that


----------



## newbie (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Oh, so it's not one of the blokes who was abused by a copper?
> 
> Still wanna know why we're not hearing from them. The crapness of our cultural attitudes to sex is sufficient explanation, but the activists themselves seem to have been pushing the "abused women" line in all the press releases and protests I have seen.
> 
> If the men have been excluded, intentionally or otherwise, this needs to be addressed. It's a consequence of a one-sided feminism that sees something wrong with stereotyping women but not with stereotyping men. They're always up for it, right? What could they possibly have to complain about?


 
perhaps we have to start from the position that none of these people have done anything wrong at all, and having their love lives dragged through the courts and the press is going to be very hard on them.  Just look at this nasty crap.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

nogojones said:


> they may not be thinking "fuck the men", but they might be thinking that a jury would think that


Yeah. And I'm saying that should be challenged. The jury will still have ten poor defenceless women  in front of them. What better opportunity could there be to challenge the stereotypes?


newbie said:


> perhaps we have to start from the position that none of these people have done anything wrong at all, and having their love lives dragged through the courts and the press is going to be very hard on them. Just look at this nasty crap.


That's why I want to know if they self-excluded, or whether they were effectively excluded by others using the "abused women" line from the get-go.


----------



## nogojones (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yeah. And I'm saying that should be challenged. The jury will still have ten poor defenceless women  in front of them. What better opportunity could there be to challenge the stereotypes?
> That's why I want to know if they self-excluded, or whether they were effectively excluded by others using the "abused women" line from the get-go.


 
Maybe, and I'm not speaking for them, they are looking to secure the best chance of getting a verdict against the rossers and exposing the state. I think whilst not challenging jurors gender stereotypes is perfect, there is greater gain to be made for the smaller victory


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

I know what you're saying, but winning by reinforcing the attitudes that we're supposed to be fighting against is a pyrrhic victory as far as I'm concerned.

I am very much not assuming that this was a conscious tactical decision, mind. I really, really hope that is not the case.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Oh, so it's not one of the blokes who was abused by a copper?
> 
> Still wanna know why we're not hearing from them. The crapness of our cultural attitudes to sex is sufficient explanation, but the activists themselves seem to have been pushing the "abused women" line in all the press releases and protests I have seen.
> 
> If the men have been excluded, intentionally or otherwise, this needs to be addressed. It's a consequence of a one-sided feminism that sees something wrong with stereotyping women but not with stereotyping men. They're always up for it, right? What could they possibly have to complain about?


One of them was quoted in the Guardian today saying something along the lines of, as it was just a one night stand he didn't feel it was on the same level as the women who'd had long term relationships with Stone etc and he felt his case might distract from the importance of their cases... or words to that effect.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Thanks. That's fair dos.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 19, 2013)

Concerning the one man, there is this from Walesonline:-

'Spying' case against Met Police to be heard in secret



> A High Court case against the Metropolitan Police over accusations they spied on a Welsh anarchist group will be held in secret, it has emerged.
> 
> Tom Fowler, a member of the Cardiff Anarchist Network, is one of 12 people taking the force to court for allegedly infiltrating groups across the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 19, 2013)

i've been thinking about this a fair bit..


out of the nine undercovers uncovered, lynn watson was the only woman. afaik the only person who's spoken about being involved with her is the bloke mentioned in the guardian, and i've not heard anything about her being in long term relationships:


> The male activist who said he slept with Watson in a tent at the Climate Camp is not part of the legal action. He told the Guardian he did not want to sue the police because the one-night stand, instigated, he said, by the female officer, was "nothing meaningful"


afaik, most (if not all) of the male officers were in long term relationships with the women.

i've no doubt there are a hell of a lot more (of both genders) that just haven't been uncovered yet. which is why they're not being sued. yet.
i'm also only aware of the nine most recent cases of undercover officers - i don't know how many there have been in the not-so-recent past, so i could be barking completely up the wrong tree. and i really should go to bed and switch my brain off


----------



## intersol32 (Jan 19, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> i've been thinking about this a fair bit..
> 
> 
> out of the nine undercovers uncovered, watson was the only woman. afaik the only person who's spoken about being involved with her is the bloke mentioned in the guardian, and i've not heard anything about her being in long term relationships:
> ...


 
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't a similar case uncovered during the McLibel trial? I seem to remember that there was an undercover female officer who was found to have slept with a male activist in London Greenpeace.

It's possible from my hazy recollections that she could have been a hired private investigator, but I'd still consider it a grave cause for concern that political activists are/were being betrayed and used in such a horrible manner.


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 19, 2013)

intersol32 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't a similar case uncovered during the McLibel trial? I seem to remember that there was an undercover female officer who was found to have slept with a male activist in London Greenpeace.
> 
> It's possible from my hazy recollections that she could have been a hired private investigator, but I'd still consider it a grave cause for concern that political activists are/were being betrayed and used in such a horrible manner.


i didn't know about that - just had a google, and it seems she was a private investigator (ex-policewoman) hired by mcdonalds, who was in a six month relationship with a male activist. apparently there were up to eight of 'em (PIs) hired. blimey.
re: the current cases and the mclibel one.. only the six people whose relationships occurred after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force have a human rights claim in the UK courts - i'm guessing that if the greenpeace stuff happened before '98, its a good enough reason as to why the bloke couldn't sue, let alone didn't.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2013)

People around at the time said there were more undercovers in London Greenpeace (no relation to the big international NGO) than actual activists at one point.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 19, 2013)

Possibly anarchist, animal right groups might be justifable when you have wacky hi jinks involving incendarys or vandalising signals in the name of anarchism .
   Although years of undercover work seems excessive if there not showing you a stash of weapons after 6 months there not going to .

Bonds antics were to save the world not to have a bit knowledge of an up coming protest.


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 24, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/23/un-official-undercover-police-scandal
A senior United Nations official has called on the British government to launch a judge-led public inquiry into the "shocking" case of Mark Kennedy and other undercover police officers who have been infiltrating protest groups..  the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly, Maina Kiai, specifically repudiated a judge's ludicrous likenening of those officers to James Bond last week*.*




> "The duration of this infiltration, and the resultant trauma and suspicion it has caused, are unacceptable in a democracy.
> 
> "It is a clear violation of basic rights protected under the Human Rights Act, and more generally under international law, such as the right to privacy," said the world expert on human rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Bonds antics were to save the world not to have a bit knowledge of an up coming protest.


 
They were also, and this is a key point, fictional. It speaks volumes that the people trying to defend these inhuman sacks of shit have no better case study to turn to than that of a fictional character; and a remorseless, amoral killer at that.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Possibly anarchist, animal right groups might be justifable when you have wacky hi jinks involving incendarys or vandalising signals in the name of anarchism .
> Although years of undercover work seems excessive if there not showing you a stash of weapons after 6 months there not going to .
> 
> Bonds antics were to save the world not to have a bit knowledge of an up coming protest.


 
It's very easy for a state to get addicted to information, certain ways of doing things, and policing of stuff that can have an economic impact, no matter if its rather marginal. Given what special branch were probably up to back when the stakes were slightly higher, its not surprising that such things lived on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2013)

elbows said:


> It's very easy for a state to get addicted to information, certain ways of doing things, and policing of stuff that can have an economic impact, no matter if its rather marginal. Given what special branch were probably up to back when the stakes were slightly higher, its not surprising that such things lived on.


Doesn't even need to be states as such - as part of some wider anti-subversion model, and i suspect though state backed these things are often driven by personal or small group motivations - and the info and activity of course then feeds into and helps expand and legitimise those proper anti-subversion models.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2013)

True. I bet there are all sorts of 'hilarious antics' in the 'former police industries', the mind boggles at the potential realities of this stuff without even getting into the proper spooky layers.

It would be fun if we could make their heads explode by pointing out that many anti-subversive activities are actually really subversive, but I expect the mindsets involved are relatively immune to thinking on that level.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 24, 2013)

I just hope that the Met have to pay out shedloads in compensation -  money which will very likely be used to handsomely fund activism for the next twenty years. Not quite the result the cops wanted I guess - but at least they once nearly stopped someone chaining themselves to a power station gate, got regular previews on every earth first leaflet, plenty of vegan cake recipes and a free copy of the perma-culture handbook. The british people can sleep safe in their beds.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2013)

I had a conversation with someone involved in the Cardiff Anarchist Network about this and they seemed convinced that one of the central deciding issues for the OB when deciding to engage in this sort of infiltration/surveillance is money. Essentially it is cheaper for them to do this and have advance intelligence of an action/demo or to sow internal disruption than spend significantly more providing policing for something that may not happen.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 24, 2013)

"So you see Mr Bond - there is nothing you can do to prevent my evil plan to bring media attention to a pressing environmental issue."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2013)

elbows said:


> True. I bet there are all sorts of 'hilarious antics' in the 'former police industries', the mind boggles at the potential realities of this stuff without even getting into the proper spooky layers.
> 
> It would be fun if we could make their heads explode by pointing out that many anti-subversive activities are actually really subversive, but I expect the mindsets involved are relatively immune to thinking on that level.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> The british people can sleep safe in their beds.


 
Unlike - one hopes - Kennedy, Lambert, Boyling, 'Jacobs', 'Watson' et al.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2013)

James Bond also murders lots of people, should coppers be allowed to execute people and get away with it as well?

Oh wait...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2013)

My god some of the comments on that Telegraph article are truly blood curdling.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 24, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> James Bond also murders lots of people, should coppers be allowed to execute people and get away with it as well?
> 
> Oh wait...


  Tbf to bond his targets cunning plan is a bit more devious than hang a banner off the side of a power station.
  Even callan or george smiley came up with better Enemys than the Cardiff anarachist network.
  Possibly a bit part in torchwood if one of the anarchists developed alien superpowers


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2013)

UN special rapporteur calling for judge-led inquiry.

Good, but



> "I therefore call on the authorities to undertake a judge-led public inquiry into the Mark Kennedy matter, and other related cases, with a view to giving voice to victims, *especially women*, who were deliberately deceived by their own government, and paving the way for reparations."


 
Aaaargh. Hardly encouraging men to come forward. 

/broken record


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2013)

> civilsociety@ohchr.org
> 
> FAO: Maina Kiai Re: Undercover police in the UK infiltrating non-violent organisation
> 
> ...


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 3, 2013)

not about kennedy, but other undercovers..
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/police-spies-identities-dead-children*

one officer 





> was conscious the parents would "still be grief-stricken". He spoke on the condition of anonymity and argued his actions could be justified because they were for the "greater good".


 
jesus christ.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 3, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> not about kennedy, but other undercovers..
> *http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/police-spies-identities-dead-children*
> 
> one officer
> ...


A couple more stories today, with more details on John Dines AKA 'John Barker'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/police-spy-what-would-family-think

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/woman-search-police-spy



Would be interesting to see the other 8+ pics of his that the _Guardian_ presumably has.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 3, 2013)

That last one should read MI6 surely.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 3, 2013)

Jesus fucking christ, just when you think this story couldn't get any more vile


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 3, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> A couple more stories today, with more details on John Dines AKA 'John Barker'.
> Would be interesting to see the other 8+ pics of his that the _Guardian_ presumably has.


as an aside, i think this is the first time i've seen him referred to as 'dines'. he was named as one of the five undercovers being sued by people they'd been in ltrs with, but referred to as 'barker' (and described as 'not yet exposed') back in december 11... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/underc...ns/2011/dec/16/legal-action-over-police-spies


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 3, 2013)

Todays "ripper street"  on bbc.
Radio Times Review by:Alison Graham
There’s a dockers’ strike in the East End and anarchists are stirring up trouble among the workers. What looks like a deadly Communist plot is revealed when a bomber is killed in an explosion sparked by his own dynamite. Or so it seems…Upright detective Edmund Reid (Matthew Macfadyen) thinks everything looks just a bit too pat, but soon comes up against Special Branch, whose officers are even more unpleasant than the criminal scum Reid deals with on his patch. 

edit:  this programme (supposed to be based on historical research) was set in 1889.          so it seems we haven't moved on much is 124 years?


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2013)

You'd think there'd be some legal mechanism for the government to issue fake passports to security personnel without having to resort to this spy shit.

Am I right in thinking these undercovers were an ACPO pet project? Or a I remembering something else they used their essentially private funds for?


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2013)

> On Tuesday the select committee will hear evidence from lawyers representing the 11 women who are suing the Met after forming "deeply personal" relationships with the spies. Kennedy, who worked for a sister unit to the SDS, is not believed to have used the identity of a dead child.
> 
> http://gu.com/p/3dgjz


Kennedy travelled as an activist, so presumably had a passport in the fake name?

Any chance of the select committee (Keth Vaz's one) getting to the bottom of this?


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 3, 2013)

ymu said:


> You'd think there'd be some legal mechanism for the government to issue fake passports to security personnel without having to resort to this spy shit.
> 
> Am I right in thinking these undercovers were an ACPO pet project? Or a I remembering something else they used their essentially private funds for?


 
some, at least -


> ACPO created the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPIOU) in 1999..Mark Kennedy told the Mail on Sunday that he was recruited by the NPOIU in 2002.


(source)


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 3, 2013)

ymu said:


> Kennedy travelled as an activist, so presumably had a passport in the fake name?
> 
> Any chance of the select committee (Keth Vaz's one) getting to the bottom of this?


good point about kennedy's passport - he was uncovered when his passport in his birth name was found, which makes me wonder why he'd have that instead of one with a fake name .edit: looks like he had a false one as well. more edit: which he had to hand in when he resigned. he was uncovered a while after that.

fingers crossed that a fair bit more will come out from the enquiries.


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2013)

I hope so. If Kennedy didn't use a dead child's identity, then it is not the only way to get hold of a fake passport for an undercover cop. Maybe he used a different criminal method (forgery or summat) but I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't a lot simpler than that for officially sanctioned purposes.

If I understand correctly, ACPO are a private organisation which creams off funds from certain services provided by the police and spends it on some dodgy agendas, some concerning 'domestic extremists'. Might be a complete red herring, but it would be interesting to know why they needed to use proper spy methods to get the passports for at least some of these fake identities.


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2013)

This seems to suggest that 'official' fake passports are issued to spies (at least within the "Western intelligence club"):



> AUSTRALIAN security agencies use false passports issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs to allow covert operatives to function overseas, intelligence sources have admitted.
> 
> Following the admission by the Deputy Opposition Leader, Julie Bishop, about Australian use of fake passports, sources confirmed Australia has a long-standing tradition of providing passports to overseas intelligence agencies. These countries are within the ''Western intelligence club'' - specifically Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Canada, sources confirm.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-part-of-fake-passport-swapping-club-20100526-webm.html#ixzz2JsptuIp7​


 
Suggesting that you only need Jackal-style methods when there's no official blessing.

How do you get the select committee to ask the right questions?


----------



## laptop (Feb 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> How do you get the select committee to ask the right questions?


 
Read previous sessions of the Committee in Hansard; decide which member is most on the ball; email them a suggestion (assuming email address is on parliament.uk - may be able to help if not.

If your constituency MP is on the Committee, courtesy says you should ask them. But you can forget.


----------



## ymu (Feb 4, 2013)

laptop said:


> Read previous sessions of the Committee in Hansard; decide which member is most on the ball; email them a suggestion (assuming email address is on parliament.uk - may be able to help if not.
> 
> If your constituency MP is on the Committee, courtesy says you should ask them. But you can forget.


My MP is Tom Watson; wrong well known select committee.

It's Vaz's committee. Finding a way to stroke his ego with it would seem to be the way forward.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's Vaz's committee. Finding a way to stroke his ego with it would seem to be the way forward.


 
I was in correspondence with his office over the Ian Tomlinson affair. I specifically raised concerns over the involvement of expert dog handlers, FIT and TSG officers. One of his aides wrote back to assure me that Mr Vaz would be leaving no stone unturned in his investigations into the incident.

A few days later Vaz was part of a _Newsnight_ panel to discuss the policing of the London G20 and his committee's report on it. He didn't seem in any way aware that the TSG was in the thick of the action at the protests (and involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson) - as they generally are so tasked - and instead seemed to characterise police on the ground there as frightened, inexperienced, non-riot-trained officers.



> But what we were told in evidence, that the people on the frontline were inexperienced and untrained officers, we were not told in our evidence, something that Brian [Paddick, also on the panel] has just told me, as we were going on this programme, that actually the Territorial Support Group are usually in the frontline as far as these protests are concerned…


----------



## ymu (Feb 4, 2013)

Better hope there's some decent journos reading the thread then.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

There are no decent journos


----------



## newbie (Feb 4, 2013)

Vaz is a lawyer sitting as a quasi-judge.  He doesn't know anything unless it's given as evidence or quasi-evidence (by the likes of Paddick).  He's also far too pompous to read email from ordinaries.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> There are no decent journos


John reed's a good journalist


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> My MP is Tom Watson; wrong well known select committee.
> 
> It's Vaz's committee. Finding a way to stroke his ego with it would seem to be the way forward.


i hope it would involve stroking just his ego


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> John reed's a good journalist


John reeds dead


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> I hope so. If Kennedy didn't use a dead child's identity, then it is not the only way to get hold of a fake passport for an undercover cop. Maybe he used a different criminal method (forgery or summat) but I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't a lot simpler than that for officially sanctioned purposes.
> 
> If I understand correctly, ACPO are a private organisation which creams off funds from certain services provided by the police and spends it on some dodgy agendas, some concerning 'domestic extremists'. Might be a complete red herring, but it would be interesting to know why they needed to use proper spy methods to get the passports for at least some of these fake identities.


i don't think you mean fake passport but genuine passport issued upon supply of false information, which is rather different. Were the passport people privy to the operation, or was the passport issued to eg mark kennedy in good faith? are the police allowed to mislead eg dwp?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

So the only good journo is ...





barney_pig said:


> John reeds dead


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

Its the whole waste of fucking time and money  and the abuse of harmless people to achieve fuck all.
 Were they invovled in serious criminal activity  no 
 Were any of there Direct actions aimed at the military or too serious disrupt major infrastructurce not really ( possibly justifable if only to avoid embarresment or activists getting shot breaking into a military camp.)

This must have cost a load of cash and  achieved what.?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Its the whole waste of fucking time and money  and the abuse of harmless people to achieve fuck all.
> Were they invovled in serious criminal activity  no
> Were any of there Direct actions aimed at the military or too serious disrupt major infrastructurce not really ( possibly justifable if only to avoid embarresment or activists getting shot breaking into a military camp.)
> 
> This must have cost a load of cash and  achieved what.?


Mark kennedy got his leg over...


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

We could have just hired a escot three times a wekk would still be cheaper
  Like my bid to run the id scheme £2 million quid which I would piss up the wall orgainising mega partys would still have saved the goverment money .


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 4, 2013)

Well he probably didn't need a huge spook operation to get a shag anyway so a complete waste of money. As soon as they understood the fears of these types destroying the UK or whatever they thought they were up to was misplaced they should have shut down the op.


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> There are no decent journos


 
that laurie penny's good. she has a whole thread on urban!


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

Laurie's no journo, she is a shining spear of justice thrust in to the black heart of oppression and privilege


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Laurie's no journo, she is a shining spear of justice thrust in to the black heart of oppression and privilege


a suppository of hackery thrust up the jaxi of politics.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 4, 2013)

referring to all this as  kennedy as having got a shag/his leg over is really offensive to the other people involved (imo). Unless you reckon a six year relationship and ultimately wrecking someone's life comes under that umbrella..


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

Its more the insane amount of effort put in for no good reason You could possibly write up the welsh anarachist network as a threat but that would make the iraqi wmd hunt look sane.
   Having an agent in place for 6 months might be justifable but for 6 years!!!

Why what the fuck was the point no violence no criminal activity messing with innocent peoples lives might as well inflitrate the sealed knot they dont like the royal family and have guns and artillery!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Its more the insane amount of effort put in for no good reason You could possibly write up the welsh anarachist network as a threat but that would make the iraqi wmd hunt look sane.
> Having an agent in place for 6 months might be justifable but for 6 years!!!
> 
> Why what the fuck was the point no violence no criminal activity messing with innocent peoples lives might as well inflitrate the sealed knot they dont like the royal family and have guns and artillery!!!


You ignorant cock. There are cavaliers and roundheads, royalists and republicans, in the sealed knot


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 4, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> referring to all this as  kennedy as having got a shag/his leg over is really offensive to the other people involved (imo). Unless you reckon a six year relationship and ultimately wrecking someone's life comes under that umbrella..



Do you think it might have been a reasonably clever and irreverent comment on the lack of purpose, stated or acheived, of these operations?

I dont think anyone is minimising or denying the harm done to those who unwittingly ended up in a relationship with a po-lice. It was just a comment on cops attitudes to the subjects they were watching. People to play with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Do you think it might have been a reasonably clever (edit - more to come)




not as things stand, no


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

Tbf stil makes more sense inflitrating a parlimentarian unit than mark stone/kennedys activities.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not as things stand, no



I was sticking up for your post!


----------



## co-op (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You ignorant cock. There are cavaliers and roundheads, royalists and republicans, in the sealed knot


 
Well there are people who dress up in the clothes of roundheads, but the Sealed Knot are hugely royalist - maybe not such a surprise as they've taken their name from the original Sealed Knot who were a bunch of royalists looking to overthrow the Commonwealth.

I was sounding off about this at some re-enactment once and got chatting with some guy, apparently there is an anti-monarchist version and they've offered the SK a re-staging of an actual battle but they declined. Word was that it might have got a bit tasty!


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

what's the score with the case against stone? is it going ahead? is anyone covering this in depth apart from the 'they used dead babies names!' faux outrage.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> what's the score with the case against stone? is it going ahead? is anyone covering this in depth apart from the 'they used dead babies names!' faux outrage.


 
What case, depends what you mean, yes.

Paul Lewis & Rob Evans first picked it up shortly after the first Kennedy stuff surfaced on IndyMedia, and have been covering it for _The Guardian_. Tony Thompson, who hooked 'Peter Black' for _The Observer_ in 2010, is (thankfully, some might say) now largely out of the picture.

Eight women, represented by Birnberg's, who were unknowingly in relationships with five cops (Kennedy, Lambert, Boyling, Dines and 'Cassidy') are bringing a legal action against the Metropolitan Police. A further three complainants represented by Tucker's are bringing a similar action.

[Edited for clarity]


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

thanks DC, it was the 8 women i was wondering about. didn't someone have a bairn as well? 
also, indymedia had exposed stone ages before the guardian googled it!!!


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

also, any speculation on the chances of success?


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 4, 2013)

Radio 4  "Today" at 8.10 this morning...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21319334

"Lord Macdonald a former director of public prosecutions said: "There is no chance at all that a crime has been committed here.

However he insisted: "We need a public inquiry into undercover policing.

"We really need to find ourselves in a position where we can reassure the public that this kind of behaviour is not going to carry on."

so a cover up of the undercover stuff is now in progress


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

bastards.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> thanks DC, it was the 8 women i was wondering about. didn't someone have a bairn as well?
> also, indymedia had exposed stone ages before the guardian googled it!!!


 
There's at least four children - one to Lambert, two to Boyling, and one to 'Officer 10' (who might possibly be 'Cassidy', which would make him 'Officer 9').

The first exposé of Kennedy on IndyMedia was October 2010. The first mainstream coverage was by Lewis & Evans in January 2011.


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

jings! didnt realise that. i stopped following the case because it made me feel physically sick!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> > On Tuesday the select committee will hear evidence from lawyers representing the 11 women who are suing the Met after forming "deeply personal" relationships with the spies. Kennedy, who worked for a sister unit to the SDS, is not believed to have used the identity of a dead child.
> >
> > http://gu.com/p/3dgjz
> 
> ...


 
Kennedy will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow in a closed session, as well as Met DAC Pat Gallan, according to _The Guardian_.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/police-dead-children-identities-parliament

The HAC website doesn't mention Kennedy or Gallan, though does say they will be taking evidence from three of the lawyers representing the people taking the legal action against the Met, and Paul Lewis the journalist.



> 3.15pm*Home Affairs*
> _Subject:_ Undercover policing
> _Witness(es):_ Harriet Wistrich, Solicitor, Birnberg Peirce & Partners, Jules Carey, Solicitor, Tuckers Solicitors and Marian Ellingworth, Solicitor, Tuckers Solicitors; Paul Lewis, The Guardian
> _Location:_ Room 15, Palace of Westminster


http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/SelectCommittee/2013/2/5/events.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I was sticking up for your post!


Easy to say after the event!


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 4, 2013)

scum sucking swine!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Kennedy will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow in a closed session, as well as Met DAC Pat Gallan, according to _The Guardian_.


 
...And obviously if anyone was around Central London tomorrow afternoon with a camera, I'm sure some recent pictures of Kennedy wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

Video of 'Pete Black' interview on how undercover police officers built up their false identities:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2013/feb/04/police-spy-how-we-stole-childrens-identities-video


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 5, 2013)

Spy-cop ID thief 'Rod Richardson' revealed at HAC hearing by lawyer Jules Carey:



> I am instructed by one family who have a son who was born and died in 1973 and we believe that a police officer used the name Rod Richardson which is the name of the child and was deployed as an undercover police officer in about 2000 to 2003 using that name and infiltrated various political groups.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/05/two-police-units-dead-children-ids


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 6, 2013)

More on 'Rod Richardson' and John Dines/'John Barker' today:



> ...The man suspected of using her child's identity spent three years posing as Richardson, infiltrating radical protest groups in London and Nottingham. He travelled abroad to participate in anti-summit protests in Sweden, France and Italy.The Guardian has been unable to contact him and is not aware of his real name. He is thought to have been a predecessor to Mark Kennedy, the police spy unmasked two years ago. Both men lived in the same Nottingham house, often used by activists, although they never overlapped.
> 
> ...He drove a dark blue Peugeot 505 and claimed to be earning money working as a fitness instructor. Instead it appears he was part of a sophisticated surveillance operation. Among his targets were the White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles, an anarchist collective known better as the Wombles that was famed for dressing up in protective padding ahead of confrontations with the riot police.
> 
> According to friends, he was particularly involved in May Day protests, fox hunt sabotage and a group called Movement Against Monarchy. He travelled abroad to participate in anti-summit protests in Sweden, France and Italy...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/06/rod-richardson-protester-never-was

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/06/brother-boy-identity-police-spies

_The Guardian_ has pictures of 'Richardson' but "has chosen not to publish the images following confidential representations from the police", for reasons that Paul Lewis seems embarrassed by, judging by his tweets:

https://twitter.com/PaulLewis/status/299209330991960064


----------



## free spirit (Feb 6, 2013)

About the only genuine reason for not publishing would be that he's currently undercover infiltrating something a little more dangerous than the wombles.

I've lost count, how many of the fuckers is that now?

One of the worst aspects of this (for political activism purposes) IME is the lingering distrust that it breeds within all activist groups, which means that particularly anyone that might possibly fit the profile of an undercover cop ends up getting frozen out, and there's an underlying feeling of distrust of anyone pretty much, and activist groups basically retreat into their own milieu for fear of allowing infiltrators in.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 6, 2013)

free spirit said:


> ..One of the worst aspects of this (for political activism purposes) IME is the lingering distrust that it breeds within all activist groups, which means that particularly anyone that might possibly fit the profile of an undercover cop ends up getting frozen out, and there's an underlying feeling of distrust of anyone pretty much, and activist groups basically retreat into their own milieu for fear of allowing infiltrators in.


 
That is as you may already be well aware, easily half the job done right there.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 7, 2013)

teqniq said:


> That is as you may already be well aware, easily half the job done right there.


yep, I'm well aware.

IMO that was what they were most successful at within Dissent and associated groups, though I guess we'd likely have fallen apart after the G8 anyway due to the mix of burn out and being fucked off with the smashy smashy brigade trashing the place that had given us a campsite at the last minute and been pretty reasonable about it all up to that point.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 7, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I've lost count, how many of the fuckers is that now?


 
10, 11, or even 12, depending on exactly who two of the wild cards are. Lewis and Evans are playing their cards close to their chest and refuse to comment.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 7, 2013)

Bearing in mind Kennedy described a situation where there would be ten full-time undercovers deployed at the same time, and also that they appear to have been undercover for periods of around four or five years, there's a lot of ground still to cover.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Bearing in mind Kennedy described a situation where there would be ten full-time undercovers deployed at the same time, and also that they appear to have been undercover for periods of around four or five years, there's a lot of ground still to cover.


 
Wouldn't surprise me if the spying-on-hippies project had been quietly wound down since Kennedy's unmasking. And for fairly obvious reasons I wouldn't trust anything Mark Kennedy says further than I could throw the cunt.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 7, 2013)

free spirit said:


> yep, I'm well aware.
> 
> IMO that was what they were most successful at within Dissent and associated groups...


 
This was what the guy who infiltrated South Wales Anarchists was most successful with. It wasn't until afterwards and in the light of publicity that they realised what had been happening and who was responsible.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 7, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> what's the score with the case against stone? is it going ahead? is anyone covering this in depth apart from the 'they used dead babies names!' faux outrage.


 

bristlingbadger.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/undercover%20cops is quite good for updates/analysis (i originally said 'keeping up to date' and then realised that wasn't what i meant)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 8, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I've lost count, how many of the fuckers is that now?


 
I have just noticed something that might be interesting. In January Lewis & Evans wrote an article on the legal action brought by women activists against the Met in relation to long term intimate relationships its undercover officers entered into in the course of their operations.



> Of the nine undercover police identified by the Guardian over the past two years, eight are believed to have slept with the people they were spying on. In other words, it was the norm.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/17/spies-sexual-relations-activists-routine

This was after the 'Officer 10' revelation (that an undercover who wasn't Lambert or Boyling had fathered a child by an activist with whom he had had a brief relationship), but before the 'Rod Richardson' story broke.

The legal action names five officers: Lambert, Kennedy, Sutton, 'Barker' (later IDed as Dines) and 'Cassidy'.

Both 'Watson' and 'Jacobs' had also by this point been accused of sleeping with targets.

'Pete Black' has said 'it was "part of the job" for fellow agents to use "the tool of sex" to maintain their cover and glean intelligence', though I can't find any direct admission of having done it himself.

At this stage the only other publicly uncovered undercover was 'Simon Wellings'. I can find no reference to him sleeping with any targets.

That gives us more or less 8 out of 9. However, _The Guardian_ identified neither 'Black' (_The Observer_) nor Wellings (_BBC_). That takes us back to 7/7.

So let's go back to the mystery 'Officer 10' - he definitely had sex. 8/8.

One of the interesting things with the 'Rod Richardson' story that Lewis & Evans gave us this month is the assertion that "the man calling himself Rod Richardson was an exception" to the 'rule' of having sex with targets. If in their January story Lewis & Evans were already working the 'Richardson' angle, then this would provide 8/9.

But then what about the anonymous Special Branch officer Lewis & Evans use to corroborate their 'Jackal Run' stories this month (for reference purposes 'Officer 11')? Is Officer 11 the same person as Officer 10? Or someone who they only became aware of after the January reference to "nine undercover police identified by the _Guardian_"?

Frankly, it's confusing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

well when you put it like that


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 8, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> 10, 11, or even 12, depending on exactly who two of the wild cards are. Lewis and Evans are playing their cards close to their chest and refuse to comment.


 
Lewis has now confirmed on twitter that 'Officer 10' and 'Officer 11' are separate people. This would indicate that there are definitely twelve undercovers who have been (partially) identified, with two of them now anonymous sources alongside the pseudonymous 'Black'.

Caveat: it is possible (whilst unlikely) that 'Officer 10' is 'Black', 'Jacobs', Dines or 'Cassidy', or that 'Officer 11' is Lambert, 'Cassidy' or Dines.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2013)

*



			Police spy: the trauma of sharing six years of life with a fictional character
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Mark Jenner lived with a woman under a fake name. Now she has testified to MPs about the 'betrayal and humiliation' she felt*
> 
> An investigation by the Guardian has established that his real name is Mark Jenner. He was an undercover police officer in the Metropolitan police's special demonstration squad (SDS), one of two units that specialised in infiltrating protest groups.
> 
> ...


 
It's the sort of thing you'd have expected from the Stasi, really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Lewis indicates that they (him and Evans) have an eleventh ready to roll - presumably 'Officer 11', their Jackal-corroborating SDS cop, or (outside bet) 'Officer 10', the third dadcop.

To be clear: both Lambert and Kennedy indicate police were running around ten or a dozen deep infiltrators at any one time. At the moment it isn't clear whether that is total across both SDS and NPOIU. It also isn't clear if other units were also operating in a similar fashion.

Our current understanding reveals only four identified UCs at any one time - that's four out of ten at best, possibly 4/24 or an even smaller fraction. We are a long way off anything approaching the whole truth. 

And justice? Justice only comes much later. There's no justice when wrongdoers still hide in the shadows, much less so when their crimes are not even acknowledged.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Today's HAC interim report release & 'Cassidy'/Jenner stories:

*HAC report (PDF/HTML)*

http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ommittee/news/130301-undercover-policing-rpt/

*Papers*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/spy-mark-kennedy-number-relations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/law-undercover-police-mps
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/spy-mark-kennedy-number-relations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/01/undercover-policing-betrayed-editorial

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/women-tell-of-undercover-police-torment-8515915.html

http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/01/call-...over-police-will-stay-out-of-bedroom-3521546/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3702716.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_02_28 (£)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-officers-put-bereaved-families-at-risk.html

*TV*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21626768
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21619324
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21629991

http://www.channel4.com/news/undercover-policing-needs-reform-say-mps

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-03-01/mps-undercover-cops-pose-risk/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-01/there-must-be-rules-for-undercover-police-officers/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-01/mps-demand-more-regulation-of-undercover-police-officers/

*Agencies*

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...docId=CNG.ff150a700b8d2e1ae1f13d1d470e09fd.61
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...mustn-t-have-sex-with-targets-panel-says.html

*Police*

http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Pre...nterim-report-on-undercover-officers-1f8.aspx
http://touch.policeoracle.com/news/article.html?id=61685

_(Updated)_


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

two sheds said:


> It's the sort of thing you'd have expected from the Stasi, really.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character


not really, the stasi didn't need them.  but the west germans had them eg peter urbach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Urbach


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Today's HAC interim report release & 'Cassidy'/Jenner stories:
> 
> *Papers*
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character


 
Was he known as "scouse Mark"?  Squatted in Forest Gate back in the late 90s?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Was he known as "scouse Mark"?


 
Would appear to be possible - described as a tall Scouser, variously "an unemployed joiner" or a "builder from Birkenhead", said to be a Tranmere Rovers fan.

He is the one described by Mark Metcalf as having infiltrated the Colin Roach Centre.

_(Edited to hedge bets)_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Evidence of 'Alison', long-term partner of PC Mark Jenner AKA 'Mark Cassidy':



> The level to which he was integrated into my family meant that people trusted me, people knew that I was who I said I was, and people believed, therefore, that he must be who he said he was because he was so welcomed into my family, so much part of it. He had official documentation. We travelled around many countries out of England, out of the UK, and he was a professionally trained liar. Again, this wasn’t somebody who was just good at telling lies and covering his back; he had professional training allowing him to perpetrate the deceit on me.
> 
> During the five years that we spent all our time together, or almost all our time together, my mother remarried. He is in my mother’s wedding photograph, because that is her wedding photograph, and I have to see him and my current partner has to see him in that. My grandma became ill and my nephew and nieces grew, and all of these things are recorded on video. A very, very close friend of mine died, and he saw me through that bereavement. We went to Vietnam on holiday; we travelled to Israel; we went to Crete and Holland. We spent summer holidays together and Christmases and New Year; not every Christmas.
> 
> I met him when I was 29, and he disappeared about three months before I was 35. It was the time when I wanted to have children, and for the last 18 months of our relationship he went to relationship counselling with me about the fact that I wanted children and he did not.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Would appear to be - described as a tall Scouser, variously "an unemployed joiner" or a "builder from Birkenhead", said to be a Tranmere Rovers fan.
> 
> He is the one described by Mark Metcalf as having infiltrated the Colin Roach Centre.


 
I don't want to slander anyone if I'm getting him confused with someone else.  I came across a scouse Mark involved in RTS stuff in late 90s, dunno if it's the same person though.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not really, the stasi didn't need them. but the west germans had them eg peter urbach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Urbach


 
And i realised after I'd posted it that one difference would have been that once the stasi had got the information, they'd just have had the protestors shot.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2013)

This mark, anyone know if he ever shaved his head?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Mark Jenner of SDS, AKA 'Mark Cassidy'.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not really, the stasi didn't need them. but the west germans had them eg peter urbach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Urbach


 
That's a very disturbing dimension to these revelations. In many other countries where the police have infiltrated more or less harmless dissident organisations, they've acted as provocateurs.

There's no reason at all, least of all the ethical standards they've demonstrated so far, to believe that this lot wouldn't also have acted as provocateurs at various points in their long-term infiltrations of harmless eco-hippies etc.


----------



## Random (Mar 1, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's no reason at all, least of all the ethical standards they've demonstrated so far, to believe that this lot wouldn't also have acted as provocateurs at various points in their long-term infiltrations of harmless eco-hippies etc.


 You're doing the infiltrated groups no favours by calling them "harmless". Many of the groups wanted to pose a serious threat to certain government and corporate policies. By arguing that the police should not have infiltrated "harmless" groups you're implicitly saying that the state are right to infiltrate groups that could harm the status quo.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2013)

Well, let's rephrase it then. "Groups who were harmless to human life."

To be honest, I don't have a huge problem with the state using undercover types to prevent some loons from trying to blow up a train that I'm on.

I do have a problem with them using such tactics against people who are doing non-violent direct action aimed at corporations and governments.

The difficulty with that position is that the state evidently can't be trusted to maintain a distinction between groups who threaten peoples lives and groups who merely threaten profits and want to lump them together, even to the extent in several fairly well documented cases outside the UK, of acting to promote violent action that can be blamed on NVDA groups.


----------



## Random (Mar 1, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The difficulty with that position is that the state evidently can't be trusted to maintain a distinction between groups who threaten peoples lives and groups who merely threaten profits and want to lump them together, even to the extent in several fairly well documented cases outside the UK, of acting to promote violent action that can be blamed on NVDA groups.


 It's not like they're trying yet failing to maintain that distinction, though, is it? They probably see "non-violent" threats to profits and government power as a major worry, and they're right in terms of their own priorities.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2013)

Random said:


> It's not like they're trying yet failing to maintain that distinction, though, is it? They probably see "non-violent" threats to profits and government power as a major worry, and they're right in terms of their own priorities.


 
Well, if the very plausible accounts of provocateurs taking part in e.g. G20 protests are true, then the police are certainly demonstrating an _awareness_ of that distinction in the public mind, they just think it's their job to mislead the public about it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Random said:


> It's not like they're trying yet failing to maintain that distinction, though, is it? They probably see "non-violent" threats to profits and government power as a major worry, and they're right in terms of their own priorities.


 
Note how the HAC felt the need to ask the three women survivors about their scrappiness:



> *Q40 Mr Clappison:* To absolutely cover it—and I am not suggesting this is the case, but so we know what we can put to the other witnesses we have— there was no violence that you were involved in or anything like that?
> 
> _*Lisa:*_ The only reason that this has happened to us is because we were members of political groups. The only reason was because I was involved in environmental groups and I was campaigning for social justice. If I had not been involved in those political groups this would not have happened. It is not about any particular individual’s activities. It is about—
> 
> ...


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 1, 2013)

From the state's pov, any group that aims to shut down power stations or block major roads is a potential threat to national security. Its naive to think otherwise IMO.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Note how the HAC felt the need to ask the three women survivors about their scrappiness:


 
Were the women asked whether the infiltrators had ever advocated violence or lawbreaking?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Were the women asked whether the infiltrators had ever advocated violence or lawbreaking?


 
Feel free to read the report! That section of evidence is not long.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> From the state's pov, any group that aims to shut down power stations or block major roads is a potential threat to national security. Its naive to think otherwise IMO.


 
i'd agree, but as someone who's just interested in the case, i have to say that they answers the women involved gave about their attitudes to the use of political violence to achieve _their_ aims were, shall we say, evasive.

they went out of their way to describe their opposition to the use by _other_ groups of political violence to achieve their aims, but they appear, from the cutting, to have been working quite hard to _not_ give an answer about themselves and their groups.

lots about the _aims_ of the groups, not much about the methods - a simple 'no' would have involved far less work and been far more informative. is it that they didn't answer 'no' because 'no' might not have been true?


----------



## Random (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> i'd agree, but as someone who's just interested in the case, i have to say that they answers the women involved gave about their attitudes to the use of political violence to achieve _their_ aims were, shall we say, evasive.


 Probably because they, quite rightly, don't want to make all sort of soppy pacifist statements just to please the court.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2013)

Random said:


> Probably because they, quite rightly, don't want to make all sort of soppy pacifist statements just to please the court.


 
a bit daft, no?

trying to prove that the Police massively over-react to a bit of protest, but refusing to say 'but we meant no harm guv'. its not doing them any favours.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> From the state's pov, any group that aims to shut down power stations or block major roads is a potential threat to national security. Its naive to think otherwise IMO.


 
This is true. However, the evidence overall points towards not neutral observation of such activities, but of direct participation - and in many cases initiation or provocation of them.

Moreover, the areas in which these officers operated extended far beyond those which might be considered of 'national strategic interest' - national infrastructure, defence facilities, hospital and medical networks etc - and into those of pure commercial concern.

Now, even though _some_ groups targeted - such as climate activists planning power station protests, RTS blockading roads, peace activists demonstrating at military bases or against arms fairs - would come under these parameters, at some time, the specific biographies of the known infiltrators, and what they got up to, point away from this.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> i'd agree, but as someone who's just interested in the case, i have to say that they answers the women involved gave about their attitudes to the use of political violence to achieve _their_ aims were, shall we say, evasive.
> 
> they went out of their way to describe their opposition to the use by _other_ groups of political violence to achieve their aims, but they appear, from the cutting, to have been working quite hard to _not_ give an answer about themselves and their groups.
> 
> lots about the _aims_ of the groups, not much about the methods - a simple 'no' would have involved far less work and been far more informative. is it that they didn't answer 'no' because 'no' might not have been true?


 
Its a loaded question though.  The state is not opposed to the use of violence.  Just any challenge to their monopoly.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> a bit daft, no?
> 
> trying to prove that the Police massively over-react to a bit of protest, but refusing to say 'but we meant no harm guv'. its not doing them any favours.


 
Maybe they did mean harm?  or at least harm as the state would see it?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> a bit daft, no?
> 
> trying to prove that the Police massively over-react to a bit of protest, but refusing to say 'but we meant no harm guv'. its not doing them any favours.


 
They've collectively survived decades of intimate and sexual engagement with state-sanctioned and directed deceivers. I suspect they're not really interested in any 'favours' the HAC might offer them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> a bit daft, no?
> 
> trying to prove that the Police massively over-react to a bit of protest, but refusing to say 'but we meant no harm guv'. its not doing them any favours.


 

'do you condemn the violence!' yes or no!' sounds familiar


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

Another article today, on 'Rod Richardson':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/01/rod-undercover-police-officer-friend-loss


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> i'd agree, but as someone who's just interested in the case, i have to say that they answers the women involved gave about their attitudes to the use of political violence to achieve _their_ aims were, shall we say, evasive.
> 
> they went out of their way to describe their opposition to the use by _other_ groups of political violence to achieve their aims, but they appear, from the cutting, to have been working quite hard to _not_ give an answer about themselves and their groups.
> 
> lots about the _aims_ of the groups, not much about the methods - a simple 'no' would have involved far less work and been far more informative. is it that they didn't answer 'no' because 'no' might not have been true?


Sometimes I feel a rational desire to use violence such as when I read effete and ineffectual liberal posts like yours


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Sometimes I feel a rational desire to use violence such as when I read effete and ineffectual liberal posts like yours


 
fortunately i can rest easy knowing that the incompetence endemic in the left ensures that you'll either miss or kill yourself in the preperation.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> They've collectively survived decades of intimate and sexual engagement with state-sanctioned and directed deceivers. I suspect they're not really interested in any 'favours' the HAC might offer them.


 
true in a personal sense, but in a political - and possibly in a personal sense as well - they are looking to expose the operation as massively mis-directed, a complete waste of police time, politically unacceptable and using methods that are utterly reprehensible. by not seeking to portray the organisations involved as, to quote *Bernie*, 'harmless', then they run the risk that the polices operations will be seen as, if perhaps distasteful, reasonably legitimate.

i had previously assumed that the polices operation was a complete waste of time and effort spying on a bunch of soapdodgers and students who spent 90% of their time either smacked off their tits or shagging each other - if however thats not the case...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> i had previously assumed that the polices operation was a complete waste of time and effort spying on a bunch of soapdodgers and students who spent 90% of their time either smacked off their tits or shagging each other - if however thats not the case...


 
Have you actually looked at _any_ of the evidence?


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Another article today, on 'Rod Richardson':
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/01/rod-undercover-police-officer-friend-loss


BTW they have changed the article to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character?INTCMP=SRCH



kebabking said:


> true in a personal sense, but in a political - and possibly in a personal sense as well - they are looking to expose the operation as massively mis-directed, a complete waste of police time, politically unacceptable and using methods that are utterly reprehensible. by not seeking to portray the organisations involved as, to quote *Bernie*, 'harmless', then they run the risk that the polices operations will be seen as, if perhaps distasteful, reasonably legitimate.
> 
> i had previously assumed that the polices operation was a complete waste of time and effort spying on a bunch of soapdodgers and students who spent 90% of their time either smacked off their tits or shagging each other - if however thats not the case...


I think you will find that in some instances the police spies actually instigated actions that people later got done for.

I find it hard to believe that there isn't even a large part of the police force that thinks that they took things a bit far with going to have kids etc with people that they then walked out on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> fortunately i can rest easy knowing that the incompetence endemic in the left ensures that you'll either miss or kill yourself in the preperation.


So you act on everything you feel? I don't.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> BTW they have changed the article to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character?INTCMP=SRCH


 
Two separate articles - that one is on Mark Jenner AKA 'Mark Cassidy' ('Officer 9'); the other one was a CiF piece about 'Rod Richardson' ('Officer 12'). The Jenner story was initially released under the title "Police spy: the trauma of sharing six years of life with a fictional character" instead of the shorter current "Police spies: in bed with a fictional character" (though both had the same URL).


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> So you act on everything you feel? I don't.


Well it would take a lot of effort to go round and slap anyone who annoyed you on the internet, for example.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Two separate articles - that one is on Mark Jenner AKA 'Mark Cassidy' ('Officer 9'); the other one was a CiF piece about 'Rod Richardson' ('Officer 12'). The Jenner story was initially released under the title "Police spy: the trauma of sharing six years of life with a fictional character" instead of the shorter current "Police spies: in bed with a fictional character" (though both had the same URL).


Click the old URL, the one in your post. It's gone. Though it may come back.



> The comment piece has been removed as it was launched in error. It will be reinstated shortly.


 
It's probably resting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Well it would take a lot of effort to go round and slap anyone who annoyed you on the internet, for example.


It's not the effort it would take to slap anyone who annoys me the puts me off, it's the effort required to slap everyone who irritates me that does.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Click the old URL, the one in your post. It's gone. Though it may come back.


 
I did check - hence my description of it


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> I did check - hence my description of it


 
It's in your cache, perhaps you should save it somewhere just in case.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> It's in your cache, perhaps you should save it somewhere just in case.
> View attachment 29598


I'll try again. I know the article has been removed, because I saw that it had been removed after you said that it had been removed.

Hovever, you said:



> BTW they have changed the article to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/police-spy-fictional-character?INTCMP=SRCH



This gives the impression that you believed that the 'Richardson' article had been "changed" to the 'Cassidy' article.

As I explained, the 'Cassidy' article was a different piece entirely, though it did previously have a different title.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'll try again. I know the article has been removed, because I saw that it had been removed after you said that it had been removed.
> 
> Hovever, you said:
> 
> ...


I did but I was in a hurry - sorry!

Also I couldn't see the other one to compare, as...it had been removed.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Have you actually looked at _any_ of the evidence?


 
only whats been in the papers (i don't care _that_ much) - all of which has broadly been in the 'police spend millions barking up the wrong tree, fucking people over and wasting their own time' storyline. to which, shockingly, i objected. if however it appears that the groups/soapdodgers concerned were not the harmless hippies they have so far been portrayed as, then perhaps i should re-evaluate my opinion that the police operatons were a complete waste of everyones time, money and distress.

the greatest irony of course being that they probably are harmless hippies, but their ego requires them to be seen by the world as dangerous revolutionaries, thus intercepting the polices/states spectacular own goal and scoring their own.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> the greatest irony of course being that they probably are harmless hippies, but their ego requires them to be seen by the world as dangerous revolutionaries, thus intercepting the polices/states spectacular own goal and scoring their own.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> only whats been in the papers (i don't care _that_ much) - all of which has broadly been in the 'police spend millions barking up the wrong tree, fucking people over and wasting their own time' storyline. to which, shockingly, i objected. if however it appears that the groups/soapdodgers concerned were not the harmless hippies they have so far been portrayed as, then perhaps i should re-evaluate my opinion that the police operatons were a complete waste of everyones time, money and distress.
> 
> the greatest irony of course being that they probably are harmless hippies, but their ego requires them to be seen by the world as dangerous revolutionaries, thus intercepting the polices/states spectacular own goal and scoring their own.


You're a bit thick aren't you?


----------



## likesfish (Mar 1, 2013)

Therotically  direct action could be dangerous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-21537939.  If EDF  are actually being honest that the demo cost them £5 million  then yeah maybe you dont have unlimited right to protest.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 1, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Therotically direct action could be dangerous.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-21537939. If EDF are actually being honest that the demo cost them £5 million then yeah maybe you dont have unlimited right to protest.


why not?
where is the line?

and with that logic all the money wasted on these 'investigations' and spent on these disgusting undercover bastards is a complete waste and "shouldn't be allowed" too then?


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 1, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Therotically direct action could be dangerous.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-21537939. If EDF are actually being honest that the demo cost them £5 million then yeah maybe you dont have unlimited right to protest.


 
Theoretically? Unlimited?
An EDF spokesperson said the company was suing the group due to the "damage, cost and disruption".


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You're a bit thick aren't you?


 
compared to you, unlikely, but if you'd like to explain why my views would be incorrect, rather than doing your normal 'look how smart i am with my one-liners' and being something of a knob in the vein of Butchersapron and offending pretty much everyone who might otherwise agree with you, then go for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

kebabking said:


> compared to you, unlikely, but if you'd like to explain why my views would be incorrect, rather than doing your normal 'look how smart i am with my one-liners' and being something of a knob in the vein of Butchersapron and offending pretty much everyone who might otherwise agree with you, then go for it.


By adopting the language of the daily mail ('soapdodgers', 'hippies') you uncritically buy into a discourse in which dissent is only present among people who are socially deficient. this makes you appear a bit thick.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 1, 2013)

Not sure if edf are being honest but if your action costs millions I think you cant really complain if you get sued.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 1, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Not sure if edf are being honest but if your action costs millions I think you cant really complain if you get sued.


that's slightly different from your earlier post

how much should actions be "allowed" to cost then?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Another article today, on 'Rod Richardson':
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/01/rod-undercover-police-officer-friend-loss


 
Story is now back up, with slightly different URL:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/01/rod-undercover-police-officer-friend


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 1, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Not sure if edf are being honest but if your action costs millions I think you cant really complain if you get sued.


 
But 'Dangerous'? And if undercover cops are instigating and participating in those actions then they should sue the police too?


----------



## likesfish (Mar 1, 2013)

Instigating then yeah the police/ state are liable taking part not so much.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

And what about when the corporations in question act not in the interests of the people 'customers' but defiantly against them?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n17/james-meek/how-we-happened-to-sell-off-our-electricity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...re-energy-payouts-could-follow-EDFs-4.5m.html

...When they act illegally in the face of lawful criticism?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/10/edf-spying-greenpeace

...When their activities disregard the safety of those working on their sites...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130228-712769.html?mod=WSJ_Utilities_middleHeadlines

...And the safety of those living beyond them?

http://www.caledonianmercury.com/20...afety-lapses-at-torness-nuclear-plant/0027151


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 1, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Was he known as "scouse Mark"? Squatted in Forest Gate back in the late 90s?


 
Its not him.  My mistake.


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

Shit, all this time I've spent on dating sites and all I really needed to do was become an undercover cop!


----------



## ddraig (Mar 2, 2013)

lol
tosser


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> And what about when the corporations in question act not in the interests of the people 'customers' but defiantly against them?
> 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n17/james-meek/how-we-happened-to-sell-off-our-electricity
> 
> ...


----------



## free spirit (Mar 2, 2013)

There's so fucking many of the bastards.

For a time back then we must have really had the powers that be rattled. Worst thing is IMO that it happened just as much if not more under Labour as under the Tories, cunt the lot of them.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 2, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Feel free to read the report! That section of evidence is not long.


 
What do you mean read the report?  Takes bloody effort that does. 

They don't ask in that short pieces on oral evidence that I can see. They asked the women whether they'd been involved in violent activities but didn't ask them or Kennedy himself whether he'd ever encouraged people to break the law.

So, even though they say at the front of the report that they're looking at the agent provacateur aspect, they don't actually seem to ask the questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2013)

free spirit said:


> There's so fucking many of the bastards.
> 
> For a time back then we must have really had the powers that be rattled. Worst thing is IMO that it happened just as much if not more under Labour as under the Tories, cunt the lot of them.


 
It's more to do with Police intelligence and civilian intelligence agencies attempting to justify their post-"fall of the Iron Curtain" budgets by theorising new threats, even if that theorising meant extrapolating mostly-harmless direct action into mostly-harmful destructive action.
Much less to do with the state being rattled.


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 2, 2013)

The peace process also meant that police and security services had to apply a bit of creative imagination to ensure that their budgets got spent.  Doesn't Larry O'Hara cover this territory in _Turning up the Heat_?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 8, 2013)

kebabking said:


> a bit daft, no?
> 
> trying to prove that the Police massively over-react to a bit of protest, but refusing to say 'but we meant no harm guv'. its not doing them any favours.


 
If the police had been asked the same questions I might agree with you.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Still think some oversight would have nipped this stupdity rather quickly.
  The cardiff anarchist alliance needed a long term infiltrator really?
    FFS  an informant could have achieved exactly the same goals not that they needed achieving in the first place frankly.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 11, 2013)

Mark Metcalf (formerly of Hackney's Colin Roach Centre) on Jenner:
http://www.bigissueinthenorth.com/2...of-knowing-how-much-damage-jenner-caused/7622


----------



## nessuno (Apr 4, 2013)

uh....god...I feel really sick reading this thread...

Urgent...special inquiry into 'Officer 12' police agent Rod Richardson. I need to speak to anyone who travelled with him to the Genoa G8 summit. He could be responsible for supplying intelligence to the Italian police on the battle of Toliemaide and the Diaz raid...  Italian prosecutors will be wanting to speak with English police about Genoa... and wanting to speak to Richardson.

Can anyone please help????


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

My partner was there but the name rings no bells. He'll ask around, will get back to you.

E2A: is that the name he was using at the time? Any photos? nessuno


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

nessuno said:


> uh....god...I feel really sick reading this thread...
> 
> Urgent...special inquiry into 'Officer 12' police agent Rod Richardson. I need to speak to anyone who travelled with him to the Genoa G8 summit. He could be responsible for supplying intelligence to the Italian police on the battle of Toliemaide and the Diaz raid... Italian prosecutors will be wanting to speak with English police about Genoa... and wanting to speak to Richardson.
> 
> Can anyone please help????


if it's that urgent why not start a thread on the topick?


----------



## nessuno (Apr 4, 2013)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/02/506316.html?c=on#c291679


----------



## nessuno (Apr 4, 2013)

sadly, As one of the british victims of Diaz, I have been away in Rome awaiting the jailing of 17 of the 27 convicted super police commanders. I missed all this back in feb when Richardson was unmasked. I have to stay in Italy for the conviction of 44 Italian police for torture at the Genoa G8. the supreme court of appeal will rule on May 13th 2013.

Genova Legal Forum and myself will now search the G8 video archive to see if Richardson attacked any Italian police.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 4, 2013)

Good luck with it


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2013)

Some stuff from today:

Mr Creedon in a letter to MPs says no families of dead children whose identities have been used by undercover cops have been contacted.

Use of dead children's identities by Scotland Yard "common practice", Chief Constable investigating undercover police Mick Creedon tells MPs

Mick Creedon said informing parents their dead children's identities had been stolen "could put lives in jeopardy."

Bit more


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 21, 2013)

The fact that Bob Lambert co-wrote the contentious London Greenpeace 'McLibel' leaflet, 'What's Wrong With McDonald's', has finally been publicly revealed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds

(Book to sell, film to shill, etc.)

Lots of shit hitting fan on this by the look of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

In a number of ways.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 21, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> The fact that Bob Lambert co-wrote the contentious London Greenpeace 'McLibel' leaflet, 'What's Wrong With McDonald's', has finally been publicly revealed:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> The fact that Bob Lambert co-wrote the contentious London Greenpeace 'McLibel' leaflet, 'What's Wrong With McDonald's', has finally been publicly revealed:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds
> 
> ...


Dave and Helen will be straight onto that.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Dave and Helen will be straight onto that.


 
Do we think it's likely that the Metropolitan Police Service owes them something for its contribution to the eating up of years of their lives?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 24, 2013)

laptop said:


> Do we think it's likely that the Metropolitan Police Service owes them something for its contribution to the eating up of years of their lives?


I think so, certainly, and I'd love it if The Met investigation currently under way into the Harrow bomb decides that Dr Lambert placed it
(but I'm not holding my breath)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I think so, certainly, and I'd love it if The Met investigation currently under way into the Harrow bomb decides that Dr Lambert placed it
> (but I'm not holding my breath)


It may be a court which decides the question of guilt; contrary to popular belief we do not live in a state yet where police determine guilt or innocence.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> It may be a court which decides the question of guilt; contrary to popular belief we do not live in a state yet where police determine guilt or innocence.


true: i was referring to the fact that there's currently an 'internal' under way on this, in the Met, right now, but if it got to court...even better!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> true: i was referring to the fact that there's currently an 'internal' under way on this, in the Met, right now, but if it got to court...even better!


it's many years since I last met andy clarke but I wouldn't be surprised if he was rather hoping lambert gets a longer stretch for the debenhams bomb than he was handed


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2013)

And let us not pretend that this is about 'rogue' Special Branch operatives.

Lambert was a loyal officer; he had been trained, briefed and deployed by others, and his activities whilst undercover were undertaken on their orders.

Whose orders, whose strategy, whose agenda?

Lambert was later responsible for the likes of Dines, Francis, Jenner and Boyling. Neither were they free agents running wild. Each must be held to account for his own actions, but so too must those who currently remain in the shadows, those who gave the orders, shaped the policy, greenlit the sexual abuse, the fabrication of evidence, the false testimony, the perjured statements, the fires lit and the bombs set - all the as-yet unpunished crimes.


----------



## nogojones (Jun 24, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> The fact that Bob Lambert co-wrote the contentious London Greenpeace 'McLibel' leaflet, 'What's Wrong With McDonald's', has finally been publicly revealed:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds
> 
> ...


 


We were gonna pop down the police station later to see if they could help us put together and print out some bedroom tax leaflets


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 24, 2013)

nogojones said:


> We were gonna pop down the police station later to see if they could help us put together and print out some bedroom tax leaflets


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2013)

nogojones said:


> We were gonna pop down the police station later to see if they could help us put together and print out some bedroom tax leaflets


they only do libellous ones


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

I wonder how long it will be before member(s) of a certain protest music band (the one that's a million times more cheesy and pretentious than the Levellers could ever be), that's often found on high-profile protests to turn out to be undercover pigs?


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I wonder how long it will be before member(s) of a certain protest music band (the one that's a million times more cheesy and pretentious than the Levellers could ever be), that's often found on high-profile protests to turn out to be undercover pigs?


 
The Space Goats?!!? 





No, I know who you mean. And a good *rule of thumb* for libel is that if your accusation matches fewer than a dozen people, it's identifiable and libels them.

So: "one member of Wyre Piddle United FC is a nonce" is a libel against all the 11.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2013)

laptop said:


> So: "one member of Wyre Piddle United FC is a nonce" is a libel against all the 11.


 
Depends if you are referring to the club as a whole commercial/social enterprise, to the playing squad, or to a match-specific team.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Depends if you are referring to the club as a whole commercial/social enterprise, to the playing squad, or to a match-specific team.


 
Nah, the dozen is only a rule of thumb. And Wyre Piddle FC wouldn't have a large pool of reserves, were it not to be a defamation-proof fictitious example


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2013)

> *Dozens of undercover officers could face prosecution, says police chief*


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/24/undercover-officers-police-chief-met



> The chief constable [Mick Creedon] would not be drawn on the specifics of Francis's allegations but said that, if proved, they were "not something that would sit comfortably with any police officer".


 
Well, any police officer except - one might reason - any of those 100+ (a conservative estimate) undercover officers of SDS, ARNI, NPOIU or NDEU, or the additional hundreds comprising their handlers and runners, the support teams, the Special Branch chain of command, the local constabulary chief officers liaising with or approving the actions of (NPOIU) spycops, the Home Office officials sitting on the committees discussing ongoing operations and workflow, or the politicians who at various times signed off on some of the specific targets and tasks over the years from 1968 until the current time - minus, of course, any who might subsequently have come to regret their work even if not to the point of publicly acknowledging it.

That's without considering all the 'but it was 10/20/30/40 years ago!' canteen cowboys who weren't even personally involved (but who wish they had been).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2013)

I enjoyed this from the chief constable leading the inquiry:



> "We don't seek to hide things. We do actually seek to get the truth and we do it properly and I frankly find it almost insulting that people suggest that in some way, because I'm a police officer, I'm not going to search the truth."


 
I wonder where anyone could possilby have got the idea that coppers sometimes behave dishonestly  

Here we have people who have dismantled people's entire lives through their elaborate deceptions, and we're supposed to believe that this was all done in the name of truth? That's the rankest example of doublethink I've seen in a while.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2013)

It must be an easy life for the undercover guys these days with the far-right being the most significant threat - pretending to be a thick racist thug won't be a tough gig for many in the Met, will it?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

This has inspired me to do some reading up on Searchlight Magazine and their links with police and MI5 (going straight to Notes from the Borderland). At the time I first heard about the whole Searchlight/MI5 stuff ten or so years ago, I more or less dismissed it as conspiracy theory from disgruntled anarchists (whom at the time I seldom got on with). Now seeing that Mark Kennedy was the tip of the iceberg I looked up with a fresh, more critical (as in thinking) set of eyes, and realised that actually it explains a lot about them and seems very much part and parcel of the MO of state security services to infiltrate, provoke, and disrupt activist organisations. Recent events, I feel, mean that groups like Searchlight should again come under scrutiny and exposed for what they are because they have been getting away with this shit for decades.

Strange how many high profile cases where activists have ended up being arrested and then ended up in court, which the media subsequently reported lurid details of their trail have subsequently found to have involved undercover police officers in the organisations and protests in question. I have my suspicions about quite a few cases now, but at present suspicions are all they are.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2013)

The paranoia this is creating is probably politically useful isn't it?

Who hasn't perused which of their acquaintances over the years might have been undercover OB?  I'm not even involved in protest-type activism, just DIY music-type stuff, which has involved gigs in squats, benefits for various things and so on but nothing confrontational, but the extent of infiltration even into very benign activism (still love the fact the state was threatened by a clown army) makes you wonder - thinking which friends have disappeared over the years, taken long overseas holidays etc.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> The paranoia this is creating is probably politically useful isn't it?
> 
> Who hasn't perused which of their acquaintances over the years might have been undercover OB? I'm not even involved in protest-type activism, just DIY music-type stuff, which has involved gigs in squats, benefits for various things and so on but nothing confrontational, but the extent of infiltration even into very benign activism (still love the fact the state was threatened by a clown army) makes you wonder - thinking which friends have disappeared over the years, taken long overseas holidays etc.


Strangely enough I started thinking about an old friend from uni days, who was well into the anarchist squatting and crusty scene, whom disappeared off the radar, often going abroad, although we would have drifted apart anyway, he doesn't do Facebook AFAIK (sadly usually my sole means of keeping in touch with people not in my local area) and we ended up on opposite sides of the country, and when we last saw each other in 2008 we didn't have _that_ much in common.

But yes, all this could easily fuel fears about _who _might be an undercover in the various activist groups (and the higher the profile of the organisation, the greater the chance there is of infiltration, or at least attempts to), and discourage people from meeting together to build activist groups, much less do any meaningful activism "because you don't know who's a pig". But as much as one should be vigilant about getting so paranoid about undercover pigs we should all be aware of the very real threat they pose, and maybe start developing strategies to:

(a) effectively find out who is an undercover, but never to accuse until 100% certain. I this is easier said than done whilst not capitulating into a paranoid mentality that excludes all outside a tight-knit activist ghetto, which ironically makes them even more vulnerable to being compromised by undercovers,

(b) organise in a way which limits the damage that could potentially be done by undercovers. I will say this does not just mean police, but also private investigators working for corporate scum, and also journalists whom are more interested in their own personal gain than the interests of the movement.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 24, 2013)

I'd echo the comment about really thinking through the logic of why you suspect someone of being an undercover / nark, as false accusations, or even snide comments giving away your suspicions can only drive away those who're falsely accused.

I was never fully accused of it outright, but did have one person in particular who seemed to have put a few things together and decided I fitted the picture enough to justify him making the odd asides about it on several occasions.

Had he thought it through properly, he might have realised it wasn't very likely given that I'd been to uni up there, and others knew me from that time, my family had been up there several times and met quite a few people, had people stay with me in family home etc. Not the sort of thing an undercover copper tends to do.

Pissed me off a fair amount tbh, though I could understand that at first glance I might have fitted the bill. I probably should have had it out with him, but couldn't be arsed tbh so pretty much walked away as I can't work alongside people I can't trust (and if they don't trust you, then you can't trust them not to drop you in the shit IMO).

On the other hand, Mark Kennedy was pretty much sussed by some a fair while before he was actually outed (2005), although not with enough evidence to convince his mates, so was just kept at arms length from anything important at that time. Have to admit though, I didn't see them actually having at least 3 infiltrating the same organisation at the same time from different angles.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

has this turned into some kind of speak the truth thread?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 25, 2013)

When the shit re. Mark Kennedy hit the fan, I recall the Guardian mentioning that accusing someone of being a copper is among one of the worst things you can say to an activist - and I fully acknowledge why. But still, it seems to be a case of another month, another report of police treating decent, good people like pawns in political games.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

He wasn't outed in 2005, he was outed in 2010.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He wasn't outed in 2005, he was outed in 2010.


details etc etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Big one because of the trials he was involved in for actions post 2005.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

free spirit said:


> On the other hand, Mark Kennedy was pretty much sussed by some a fair while before he was actually outed (2005), although not with enough evidence to convince his mates, so was just kept at arms length from anything important at that time.


 

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Undercover-cop-used-modified-watch-record-eco-meetings/story-12180035-detail/story.html#axzz2XB68HvDG came to mind (that's just for starters..)

e2a: do you mean that he was sussed in 2005 and excluded from being too involved until he was uncovered years later/in 2010?


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

Paul T said:


> has this turned into some kind of speak the truth thread?


eh? (sorry, i'm a bit tired, and hard of understanding properly tonight)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> eh? (sorry, i'm a bit tired, and hard of understanding properly tonight)


yeh, think i am too, night hon x


----------



## Tom A (Jun 25, 2013)

If people had sussed him in 2005 (six years before being outed - since tufty's report is from 2011), how come he still got away with spying on activists as late as 2009? Unless that hadn't really sussed him out at all - remember there were two other coppers in the same organisation. One wonders if the police will soon start making organisations made entirely of undercovers, to act as "honeytraps" and to deliberately create provocative and controversial actions which will spilt public opinion on the issue of the day. To those thinking I'm making a bad joke, it isn't _that_ far-fetched, honeytrap organisations were and probably still are part of the MO of Searchlight (e.g. Combat 18 in the 90s), who I mentioned previously and who's links to the police and intelligence services are well documented.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jun 25, 2013)

Tom A said:


> This has inspired me to do some reading up on Searchlight Magazine and their links with police and MI5 (going straight to Notes from the Borderland). At the time I first heard about the whole Searchlight/MI5 stuff ten or so years ago, I more or less dismissed it as conspiracy theory from disgruntled anarchists (whom at the time I seldom got on with). Now seeing that Mark Kennedy was the tip of the iceberg I looked up with a fresh, more critical (as in thinking) set of eyes, and realised that actually it explains a lot about them and seems very much part and parcel of the MO of state security services to infiltrate, provoke, and disrupt activist organisations. Recent events, I feel, mean that groups like Searchlight should again come under scrutiny and exposed for what they are because they have been getting away with this shit for decades.


 
Couldn't agree more: indeed last Thursday (20/6/13) myself and Paul Stott attended the inquest of a Searchlight asset who topped himself in March.  The whole show was a disgraceful whitewash, and (amusingly enough) when a Notes From the Borderland colleague tried to interest the Guardian's Paul Lewis, he just did not want to know..see below.  There is a Duncan Robertson thread here on Urban 75, which has sadly attracted little interest...

http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...e/127-duncan-robertson-inquest-exclusive.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Larry O'Hara said:


> Couldn't agree more: indeed last Thursday (20/6/13) myself and Paul Stott attended the inquest of a Searchlight asset who topped himself in March. The whole show was a disgraceful whitewash, and (amusingly enough) when a Notes From the Borderland colleague tried to interest the Guardian's Paul Lewis, he just did not want to know..see below. There is a Duncan Robertson thread here on Urban 75, which has sadly attracted little interest...
> 
> http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...e/127-duncan-robertson-inquest-exclusive.html


 
Thing is Larry, people are interested in the subject of all this undercover stuff, it's just that only watchers would know who he was - i tried to circulate as soon as your original piece came out and link it up with wider stuff (as you do). Well worth another go but making the assumed stuff more explicit. I'll do what i can on that front.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thing is Larry, people are interested in the subject of all this undercover, it's just that only watchers would know who he was - i tried to circulate as soon as your original piece came out and link it up with wider stuff (as you do). Well worth another go but making the assumed stuff more explicit. I'll do what i can on that front.


i was going to say the same thing, some more concise context would be very helpful.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jun 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thing is Larry, people are interested in the subject of all this undercover, it's just that only watchers would know who he was - i tried to circulate as soon as your original piece came out and link it up with wider stuff (as you do). Well worth another go but making the assumed stuff more explicit. I'll do what i can on that front.


 
I agree.  The thing is though, and one reason why I dislike _The Guardian_ so much, is that it helps set the agenda of what stories are legitimate and what aren't.  I shall be reading the Lewis/Evans book closely to assess their official sources.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

Larry O'Hara said:


> when a Notes From the Borderland colleague tried to interest the Guardian's Paul Lewis, he just did not want to know..


he's certainly *cough* slow to return calls these days too.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jun 25, 2013)

Paul T said:


> i was going to say the same thing, some more concise context would be very helpful.


 
If you mean who Robertson was, that is provided in the preceding piece also on the site Duncan Robertson Sad Life Mysterious Death here
http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...ncan-robertson-sad-life-mysterious-death.html

I agree you can't make too much sense of the most recent article without the first: which is stated in the opening paragraph...


----------



## Tom A (Jun 25, 2013)

Larry O'Hara said:


> I agree. The thing is though, and one reason why I dislike _The Guardian_ so much, is that it helps set the agenda of what stories are legitimate and what aren't. I shall be reading the Lewis/Evans book closely to assess their official sources.


They appear to work in tandem with the BBC, and possibly to an extent Channel 4 and the Independent as well as well. I won't be surprised if there are some ulterior motives behind this, people have already noted that this has the potential to destabilise activist groups though the fuelling of paranoia.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2013)

Larry O'Hara said:


> I agree. The thing is though, and one reason why I dislike _The Guardian_ so much, is that it helps set the agenda of what stories are legitimate and what aren't. I shall be reading the Lewis/Evans book closely to assess their official sources.


 
I was thinking more of your own work, esp on DR - and how that could be tied into the stuff the l/e books is 'revealing', might be some sort of push in that for you/us. Rather than, as you say, their agenda (and limit) setting.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

Tom A said:


> , people have already noted that this has the potential to destabilise activist groups though the fuelling of paranoia.


 
not just activist groups..
(i am an autonomous individual, dammit!


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jun 25, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> he's certainly *cough* slow to return calls these days too.


 
Having spoken once to my colleague David Pegg he will not be too quick to take them either


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

Larry O'Hara said:


> If you mean who Robertson was, that is provided in the preceding piece also on the site Duncan Robertson Sad Life Mysterious Death here
> http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...ncan-robertson-sad-life-mysterious-death.html
> 
> I agree you can't make too much sense of the most recent article without the first: which is stated in the opening paragraph...


i'm doing me best to keep up chief.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 25, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> not just activist groups..
> (i am an autonomous individual, dammit!)


Well, obviously not. But that would be the intention behind it, to undermine anything that could be or currently is effective resistance against the ruling class shitting on the working classes - that is what I (somewhat poorly) defined as "activist groups".


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

divide/conquer, you mean?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 25, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> divide/conquer, you mean?


Yeah, that.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Well, obviously not. But that would be the intention behind it, to undermine anything that could be or currently is effective resistance against the ruling class shitting on the working classes - that is what I (somewhat poorly) defined as "activist groups".


activist seems to have become the nom de jour of every petit wank oxbridge apologist lately.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 25, 2013)

Paul T said:


> activist seems to become the nom de jour of every petit wank oxbridge apologist lately.


We need another term, since reclaiming it from the likes of a certain upper-middle-class pseudo-radical Twitter-bothering bleeding-heart-liberal Guardianista "journalist" seems like too much of an uphill struggle


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

Paul T said:


> every petit wank oxbridge apologist lately.


 
that's it - my brain has finally proper crumbled. paul t, i *think* i understand and approve of your last post, but i am not actually sure 

zombie and apocalypse films in bed (*obviously* a recipe for an untroubled mind) it is - night all.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

so, which one do you think was detective-boy then?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Undercover-cop-used-modified-watch-record-eco-meetings/story-12180035-detail/story.html#axzz2XB68HvDG came to mind (that's just for starters..)
> 
> e2a: do you mean that he was sussed in 2005 and excluded from being too involved until he was uncovered years later/in 2010?


 
I might have accidentally put my foot in it here, but I was taken to one side pre-stirling and warned that he was strongly suspected of being plod, and was being excluded from anything too important. Unfortunately it was only on the basis of a process of elimination based on the person doing the telling having eliminated everyone else due to his knowing their history personally, and the only one left who's history wasn't known and could have passed on certain details to the police being Mark.

Problem was, it'd have set one group against another, with the other group thinking the sun shone out of Mark's arse, and as they wouldn't know the history of the others involved, they'd not be in the same position to make that judgement. I'm not sure, but I suspect this was the underlying cause of the fight involving Mark at some point in Stirling as well, and suspect that he was also spreading similar rumours about others involved to deflect the attention from him.

Maybe this should have been handled better, but there wasn't really any solid evidence, and dissent basically fell apart after the G8, in no small part because of the divisions caused by these fuckers, and some not being willing to work with others again because of the suspicion of infiltration etc. I personally had no involvement after Stirling, so really don't know what if anything went on afterwards, I suspect that most of the others most involved who'd shared their suspicions about Mark also just gave it up as a bad job, or focussed on stuff closer to home. I never saw him or most of the Nottingham crowd again after Stirling, and had no idea he was still active - tbh I'd expected that someone else would have taken the initiative to out him or he'd just slunk away after the G8.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2013)

ps, this ain't the first time I've said this on this thread.



free spirit said:


> innit.
> 
> glad I watched it, helped me make a little more sense of some of the stuff that went on around the G8.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 25, 2013)

makes everybody jumpy innit? FUCK THEM.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2013)

free spirit said:


> _eg targetted arrests of action medics control team_


fwiw, turns out that probably wasn't Mark, more likely the woman who IIRC had infiltrated both the clowns and action medics in Leeds.

dirty tactics to be infiltrating the medics.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2013)

Paul T said:


> makes everybody jumpy innit? FUCK THEM.


 
yep.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 25, 2013)

Paul T said:


> makes everybody jumpy innit? FUCK THEM.


jumpy? try suicidal.i've experienced kennedy fallout - the people he fucked over are mirroring and repeating his less savoury behaviours. a lot of them in my direction, and i doubt i'm the only one. in some weird way, it'd actually be easier on my brain if they were being paid by the state to do it, rather than engaging in it voluntarily , 'For The Moooovement!!1!', and seemingly believing they're totally justified. my favourite explanationapology from them was that i was a 'sacrifice' 'for the greater good'.
and an 'offline issue' when i tried to bring it up on t'internet 


i don't think the police necessarily need undercover environmentalists. they'd probably learn a hell of a lot more about activists activities * if they undercovered with the samaritans or mental health crisis teams
. im(limited)e..


and i've given up fucking them these days.it wasn't good for my head when i found out that they'd forgotten what 'no' means, and then that they had a track record that had 'been dealt with within The Activist Community' for that sort of thing. i know i'm only referring to one specific bad apple/rotten egg 'they', but then again, he's surrounded by apologists and people who tried to fluffy it up,cover it over, and basically make it our fault for being assaulted, not his fault for assaulting.

ta for the suggestion though 


*esp when groups like ndfg are working in 'cells', so nobody in The Group knows 100% about what/who/where the rest of The Group is. according to their letter of apollollogy, at least. personally i'm not sure that i buy it.




and huge thanks for those posts free spirit - makes things make a helluvvalot more sense in my head now (i think my 'friends' were the 'other group'. which would explain why their version of the story of kennedy/stone's uncovering was so wildly different)

six months ago, i wouldn't have ever imagined i'd be writing this post.
i'd really like it if i wasn't able to - it'd be fucking lovely if everything that happened with me local hippy community hadn't happened. i'm posting now because i've ended up having to call the samaritans at 4am one too many times now.
there isn't a manual for dealing with any of this shit, and my 'support network' was the people that at the time, er, i needed supporting over. where the fuck am i meant to go from there? luckily i'm starting to learn to trust people a bit more again. keep going two steps forward and one step back, but still. slow progress  otoh, am i evidence that 'divide and conquer' is working? 

right. need coffee. and a vomit.


----------



## youngian (Jun 25, 2013)

Did I hear this undercover mole on Dispatches say he had sued the police for 'indentity disorder' and it had caused his divorce (after a few years of duplicitous relationships)?

He's the worst James Bond ever, he's David fucking Niven.


----------



## rekil (Jun 25, 2013)

youngian said:


> Did I hear this undercover mole on Dispatches say he had sued the police for 'indentity disorder' and it had caused his divorce (after a few years of duplicitous relationships)?
> 
> He's the worst James Bond ever, he's David fucking Niven.


Bad comparison. David Niven was a dead hard commando in WW2 (and refused to talk about it)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2013)

The Undercover book claims three SDS spies were sent into anarchist groups in the early 1990s - DAM 1990-1993, and two in Class War. One was the one Shayler has previously described meeting, though Francis/'Black' recounts the scene differently:



> One was in place in February 1992 when he had a meeting in a London safe house with David Shayler, the MI5 officer later jailed for breaking the Official Secrets Act after leaking details of alleged incompetence in the secret services. Shayler had at that time been assigned to investigate whether Class War posed a threat to British democracy. The SDS officer supplied intelligence to the Security Service, and had become an official MI5informant, designated the code number M2589.
> 
> According to Shayler, the ‘peculiar arrangement’ in which the SDS officer lived the life of an anarchist for six days a week, returning only occasionally to his friends and family, had ‘affected the agent psychologically’. Shayler recounts: ‘After around four years of pretending to be an anarchist, he had clearly become one. To use the service jargon, he had gone native. He drank about six cans of Special Brew during the debrief, and regaled us with stories about beating up uniformed officers as part of his “cover”. Partly as a result, he was “terminated” after the 1992 general election. Without his organisational skills, Class War fell apart.’
> 
> According to Black, the true story was a little different. He says the SDS officer in question was a ‘top end’ operative who served the unit well. During the encounter with the MI5 officer, he acted the part of a coarse anarchist because he had little time for Shayler, who was perceived to be a ‘desk wanker’ – though Black concedes that ‘some MI5 desk officers who came out to talk to us were superb and we had a very, very good relationship with them’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2013)

youngian said:


> Did I hear this undercover mole on Dispatches say he had sued the police for 'indentity disorder' and it had caused his divorce (after a few years of duplicitous relationships)?
> 
> He's the worst James Bond ever, he's David fucking Niven.


you thought that woody allen was a better james bond than david niven?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 4, 2013)

> *Ex-West Yorkshire police chief referred to IPCC over Lawrence allegations*
> 
> Sir Norman Bettison is referred to IPCC amid fears officers tried to discredit members of murdered teenager's family


 


> [West Yorkshire's police and crime commissioner] Burns-Williamson said: "I have become aware of three documents following a thorough search requested by West Yorkshire police chief constable Mark Gilmore.
> 
> "These documents raise significant concerns over the role of Sir Norman Bettison at the time he was assistant chief constable of West Yorkshire police in 1998 in commissioning a report to be prepared in the respect of a key witness appearing before the Macpherson inquiry.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/03/ex-police-chief-ipcc-lawrence-allegations?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## mr steev (Jul 4, 2013)

I doubt it will come to anything but  the CPS may bring first case against Metropolitan police spy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/04/possible-case-metropolitan-police-spy


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2013)

mr steev said:


> I doubt it will come to anything but the CPS may bring first case against Metropolitan police spy
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/04/possible-case-metropolitan-police-spy


 
The charge of revealing the identity of two other touts is the most likely to be pursued, it seems to me


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

Norman Bettison 'had smear file' on anti-racist campaigner 



> A man decorated for his community work has been officially informed that he was the potential victim of an alleged smear campaign orchestrated by the former police chief Sir Norman Bettison, as he prepared to publicly back the Stephen Lawrence family's campaign for racial justice.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> jumpy? try suicidal.i've experienced kennedy fallout - the people he fucked over are mirroring and repeating his less savoury behaviours. a lot of them in my direction, and i doubt i'm the only one. in some weird way, it'd actually be easier on my brain if they were being paid by the state to do it, rather than engaging in it voluntarily , 'For The Moooovement!!1!', and seemingly believing they're totally justified. my favourite explanationapology from them was that i was a 'sacrifice' 'for the greater good'.
> and an 'offline issue' when i tried to bring it up on t'internet


 
Do you, by any chance, live in Leeds?


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 8, 2013)

half way through the Undercover book at the mo. Definitely worth a read


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 8, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Do you, by any chance, live in Leeds?


depends who's asking. are you about to be an apologist for them? are you one of the fuckers who has contacted/followed me home/applied to volunteer alongside me at my workplace, despite me asking for y'all to keep the fuck away from me? are you the rapey one? or are you wearing a wire?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 8, 2013)

gawkrodger said:


> half way through the Undercover book at the mo. Definitely worth a read


Disappointing that it isn't properly referenced, but then I guess they deliberately wanted to obfuscate their sources.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 8, 2013)

ha, almost made the same comment in my post above.

Also repeatedly amazed at some of the groups they thought were threats


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 8, 2013)

gawkrodger said:


> Also repeatedly amazed at some of the groups they thought were threats


 
If anything, I think that the book did well to demonstrate how that was _not_ the case - in that they weren't deliberately targeting minor, fringe or clearly 'harmless' groups, and that there was a clear strategy of using 'stepping stones' in order to reach a primary target group.

The 'entry point' groups, the 'bearding' through intimate relationships, the willingness to undertake more mundane or dull administrative tasks, the resources or skills to carry out (key) specialist tasks - all helped enable the infiltrators to move through a scene or milieu on the way to an actual high priority subject.

After all, the SDS only had a roster of ten undercovers in the field at any one time, covering a broad spectrum of groups. Whilst SDS was largely focused on London, it still wouldn't waste valuable deployments unnecessarily.

A similar argument can also be made for the NPOIU, even though at times it appeared to have more undercovers in the field, and operated nationwide rather than limiting itself (in the main) to the capital. Consider how suspected NPOIU spycop 'Marco Jacobs' was redeployed from Brighton to Cardiff when things were not really working out on the first mission; ditto 'Lynn Watson' - if it didn't seem to be working (as NPOIU would consider it), then they were moved someplace to try again. Look at 'Watson' - she became well embedded in the Leeds scene, not just CIRCA (for example). Clearly the NPOIU was not targeting CIRCA (for example), but using it so that their agent could become part of the local activist furniture.

The success of Lambert in his use of London Greenpeace and other above-ground groups to build his credibility within the wider AR/environmentalist movement, to get noticed as a 'doer' - with getting inside the cladestine ALF-style underground his ultimate objective - can be contrasted with the failure of Chitty, tasked with the same, but happy to stick to the open, legal groups instead of going in deeper.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 8, 2013)

amazed is perhaps the wrong word and makes me sound naive! ha 

Surprised they put so much effort into militant post-labour purge and the SWP


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2013)

gawkrodger said:


> amazed is perhaps the wrong word and makes me sound naive! ha
> 
> Surprised they put so much effort into militant post-labour purge and the SWP


One aspect that they don't really get into, possibly because of the lack of sources amongst relevant bureaucrats 1968-present day, is the pretty arbitrary scale of the SDS. Dixon asked for £1 million and ten men, and apparently got it - and yet despite the clearly changing political terrain over the years, and whilst the budget no doubt rose, the template of ten undercover officers at a time seemed to persist until 2008. The 'one out-one in' doctrine seemed not to be based on any particular reason as well.

There was also very little information on how tasking was undertaken - Francis had originally been intending to infiltrate anarchists but at the last moment was switched to socialist groups and their anti-fascist fronts, possibly with AFA as the actual primary target. There are no real details as to how this decision was made or delivered - only that "the boss" pulled him in shortly before deployment to deliver the news. This was Autumn 1993 - so it wasn't Lambert, who returned to SDS as Operational Controller from other SB duties in 1994. Presumably it was his predecessor, or else the head of SDS (DCI Keith Edmondson). The chain of command then seemed to go straight to the Commander of SB.

So an SDS management would comprise the Ops Controller and the DCI, and report to SB through its Commander - but who else was involved in tasking and strategic decisions? Clearly there would be others with an interest in influencing this process - within the Home Office, for example. But without having clarity on who knew about the existence of SDS, it is difficult to pin anything further on this particular donkey's arse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Second police spy says Home Office knew of theft of children's identities



> A second police spy has said the Home Office was aware that undercover police officers stole the identities of dead children to infiltrate political groups.
> 
> Peter Francis, a former undercover officer who has become a whistleblower, said the Home Office helped the spies by providing false passports in the names of the dead children.
> 
> ...


 


> Francis, who infiltrated anti-racist groups between 1993 and 1997, discussed the technique with the head of the SDS as he had reservations about stealing the identity of a four-year-old boy who had died. He is not disclosing the name of the SDS head.
> 
> "We bounced it around – what were his thoughts, what were my thoughts. It was evident that it was standard practice," Francis said.


 
Why isn't he? If he wants to be a whistle blower, blow whistles.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 15, 2013)

The book is not particularly helpful with names or command structures, beyond this:​​Commander, Special Branch​​^​^​^​​Head of SDS​​^​^​^​​Controller of Operations​​The Head of SDS at the time of Lambert's return in 1994 from elsewhere in Special Branch following his successful ALF-infiltrating tour of duty (including stints in E Squad and later also investigating former SDS officer Mike Chitty) is given as DCI Keith Edmondson.​​Lambert appears to have been the Ops Controller of SDS from 1994 (or soon thereafter) onwards.​​​


----------



## intersol32 (Jul 15, 2013)

gawkrodger said:


> amazed is perhaps the wrong word and makes me sound naive! ha
> 
> Surprised they put so much effort into militant post-labour purge and the SWP


 

I think you can understand it partially from the political atmosphere that existed at the time  . The '80's and early '90's was still rife with the concept of "the enemy within". Much of the security services' members like Lambert etc had learned their field craft during a period that was still rife with anti-communist paranoia.

Essentially the outlook is still perhaps the same - minus the concept of every radical group being backed by "Moscow gold", there's still the inherent suspicion toward alternative or radical ideas (no matter how passive these ideas may be).

If you've ever had the displeasure of being forced into the same room as Special Branch officers, you come quickly to the conclusion that they see the world solely through the prism of the State (if that makes sense?). They can definitely be described as weird fuckers.


----------



## newbie (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Second police spy says Home Office knew of theft of children's identities
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roger Pearce, head of SDS 1999-2003 is interviewed here <iplayer>


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2013)

newbie said:


> Roger Pearce, head of SDS 1999-2003 is interviewed here <iplayer>


you can also download it


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2013)

[Originally responding to gawkrodger & intersol32]

I think you have to consider this whole issue - spy cops - as following two similar but different tracks.

The SDS (1968-2008) was strictly Special Branch, with 'true believers' put into the field. Career SB officers like Lambert, Dines, Boyling (who later set up the Muslim Contact Unit with Lambert) and even Francis. In the book, by his own account Francis had wanted to join the Security Service, but had been dissuaded on account of being too lower middle/working class. Instead he was joined SB, and he loved it.

The NPOIU (1998-2011, then merged with NDET & NECTU and rebranded NDEU, now apparently restructured again into NDEPDIU), whilst closely linked to SB, for most of its existence has been defined in different terms. It grew out of the ARNI, which began life as an anti-ALF intelligence-gathering unit based in Scotland Yard headed by Colin Hoye, a Det Supt from the Met's SCS - with notable input from Essex Constabulary's PC Colin Wiggins - in 1984. It had been set up by way of the 'shit rolls downhill' principle; the food industry (facing losses through product recalls caused by spikings, amongst other things) lobbied the Home Office hard, the HO pushed ACPO, etc. By 1986 it was running a lot slicker, and was formally established as ARNI - a national unit running parallel to, not subsumed by, SB.

So bear in mind we already have the makings of a turf war - two separate units targeting the same goal, with AR activists the unknowing and unwilling prize.

In 1991 ARNI was given operational parameters beyond its initial intelligence-gathering scope. Meanwhile in 1993/4, Special Branch was given the green light to expand beyond pure AR into broader environmental politics - as the roads protests start to get traction.

Then we get to 1998: Barry Moss is tasked with setting up the NPOIU at Scotland Yard, consolidating ARNI (now under Rod Leeming) together with other smaller AR intelligence-orientated police units covering similar ground. In 1999 it too is cleared to broaden out into environmental groups (bear in mind the failure so far of police to arrest the success of RTS and the spread of its tactics, with the M41 party, the link up with the Liverpool Dockers and the RMT, the only half-sabotaged Never Mind The Ballots, the Birmingham Global Street Party right up to the Mayday Circle Line Party & the impending J18).

Meanwhile in 2001 Leeming retires from the Met and goes into private practice as Global Open...

In 2004, under pressure from industry - particularly in Cambridgeshire - NETCU is set up (led by Steve Pearl out of Cambridgeshire). NDET follows a year later in 2005, around Kent Constabulary. In 2006 it seems that NPOIU (and NETCU and NDET) was taken away from its originating police force, the Met, and given to ACPO to run.

In April 2009 came the raid on the gathering of activists considering whether or not to take part in a shutdown of the Ratcliff power plant. The raid was precipitated by intelligence supplied from the inside by NPOIU's Mark Kennedy. Kennedy was exfiltrated from his deployment in October 2009. "Not long after being pulled out", Kennedy was approached by Leeming and asked whether he would like to continue doing what he had been doing, but in the private sector; he did, and having resigned from the Met within two months, Kennedy was back in the activist milieu at least as early as May 2010.

The spycop story first blows up on IndyMedia, with the unmasking of Kennedy in October 2010, then breaks big in the mainstream press early 2011. The following shitstorm leads to the announcement that NPOIU, NDET and NETCU - at that point all run out of ACPO under the NCDE (a role filled by an ACC, Anton Setchell, until his retirement in November 2010 when it was downgraded to a Det Ch Supt, Adrian Tudway)- would be brought together under the control of the Met and merged together as NDEU.

That's a very brief organisational history, based on some of the information out there. There are holes - we have only (somewhat self-serving, often lie-filled) 'confessionals' from three spy cops: Lambert and Francis (SDS), and Kennedy (NPOIU). But the behaviour of those we know were SDS certainly follows certain patterns, giving an indication of tradecraft; as does the behaviour of those spy cops known or believed to be NPOIU. We can also identify differences between the behaviour and deployment of SDS and NPOIU spy cops. This aspect is also supported by the 2012 HMIC report into undercover intelligence gathering police units.

But so far, I think that the evidence does point towards a broad and generalised split between the Cold Warrior-style 'true believers' of the SB's SDS, and a different kind of officer, which so far is difficult to identify in the positive (given the limited evidence available), but which seems to conform to a negative: in other words, unlike the SB/SDS, and motivated less by a SB counter-subversion/'enemy within' mentality.

Of course, the willingness and enthusiasm of some old school Cold Warriors to cross over into the private sector further confuses things...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> ...Meanwhile in 1993/4, Special Branch was given the green light to expand beyond pure AR into broader environmental politics - as the roads protests start to get traction...


 
As an aside, it is worth noting that from 1993 at the latest, the Department of Transport began using a *private detective agency*, Bray's, to maintain *surveillance* (much of it covert) on roads protesters across the country, as well as to serve legal papers.

In an apparent attempt to obscure the relationship - and following concerns that large amounts of money were being spent without competitive tendering or written contracts - the direct relationship between Bray's and DoT was at one point terminated, before Treasury solicitors were then used to contract Bray's. Bray's was also the firm hired by (*Conservative Party-linked* construction giant) Tarmac for similar spying purposes.

Note also that Bray's attempted to circumvent the Data Protection Act by refusing protesters access to intelligence held on them - effectively operating an* illegal blacklist*, much like the Economic League/The Consulting Association, in which - lest we forget - Tarmac (along with dozens of other big construction companies) were and remain balls-deep.

Tarmac and other civil engineering companies closely linked to the Conservative government's massive road building programme also hired the *private security* company *Group 4* - an engagement approved by the DoT. Now G4S, Group 4 in the early 1990s was somewhat smaller than today - and its fortunes were considerably improved with both the roads programme contracts and the Tory government giving them the first private prison security contracts in 1993. Oh, and Group 4 was also closely linked to the Tories.

During its extensive involvement in the roads protests, both in camp clearances and in site security, Group 4's personnel were repeatedly accused by protesters of excessive force and brutality of a scale and nature that cannot easily be blamed on the proverbial few bad apples. It should also be noted that there were also numerous accounts of sexual assault and attempts at sexual humiliation of women protesters by Group 4 security, and of a conscious effort to remove all media personnel and protester cameras from the area before a site clearance.

The Peter Taylor _True Spies_ documentary (2002), which was the first mainstream reference on SDS, briefly covered the involvement of the political police in the roads protests, focusing on the Newbury bypass campaign of 1996.



> ...Special Branch resorted to their usual methods of gaining information on the opposition's plans.
> 
> 
> They recruited informers and paid them anything from £25 to larger sums of money - even up to £1,000 a week...


 
No mention of packed lunches, though.

Taylor then claims that Thames Valley Police had "heard of a particular individual who worked for a private security company with unique skills and a perfect pedigree to infiltrate the protesters." Both the freelance spy and his company were hired by TVP to infiltrate the Newbury camp, and tasked specifically with sabotaging the tunnel resistance. Following the success of the operation at Newbury (the tunnel was taken whilst the defenders' guard was down thanks to the spy's tip-off), "Special Branch then directed [the spy] to infiltrate the animal rights movement."

This illustrates how the spycop scandal is not straightforward, but instead involves a collection of overlapping, sometimes competing, efforts addressing a spectrum of issues, backed by or blocked by a similarly broad panopoly of interests.

You have *Special Branch* - both collectively and smaller elements within it (such as SDS), with all the attendant petty rivalries, turf wars, conflicting opinions on strategy etc one comes to expect in large organisations.

You have *individual police forces* - again, with all the caveats noted above preventing a single, unified approach at all times. Local constabularies will of course be sensitive to particular regional interests (eg TVP and Hampshire Police coming under pressure from civil engineers profiting from the roads programme to deal with protests).

You have *national police units*, ditto the above, and tending towards strong influence from a narrow band of special interests (eg scientific testing companies for NETCU).

You have executive agencies, the *government* departments on whose behalf they operate, the senior civil servants tasked with effecting policy directives, and the political masters to whom they answer - again, rarely a single corporate opinion, and with the addition of political considerations at a level far beyond the former.

You have the professional spooks of the *Security Service* (ditto the above and then there's the turf wars with SB, SIS and others especially post-Cold War; the faction fighting within itself; the class dynamics persisting within the organisation; and so on).

And you of course have the *private corporate interests*, answering to share price and stock value and market positioning and bottom line.

Consider the use of spies - both private sector and public by the likes of McDonald's, Tarmac, BAe and so on.

That also links in to the growth in both *private security* providers and *private intelligence* gatherers (like Bray's, Southern Investigations/Law & Commercial Services Ltd etc), which clearly have a commercial interest in expanding the overall market and their share within that market.

Finally, consider the interconnectedness with the private *employment agencies* who, in tough economic times, and thanks to an increasingly casualised work environment, can quickly fill the day-glo jackets and hard hats on an eviction for a tidy penny for themselves, and saving the security companies the cost of actually permanently employing people.

Spycops do not swim alone in quiet waters. This is a busy and profitable pond.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 16, 2013)

they're 'generally' sorry now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23324783


> *The Metropolitan Police has apologised for the "shock and offence" caused by the use of dead children's identities by undercover officers.*
> But Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said they would not confirm which children's identities had been used.
> The police had contacted 15 families to issue them a general apology, he said.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2013)

The first of Mick Creedon's Op Herne reports - on 'Use of Covert Identities' - is available to download here:

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur16/CO634-12OpHernereport.pdf

The full - guarded and no doubt carefully screened, word-by-word - Commissioner's statement is available here:

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur16/page04.htm


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 16, 2013)

So 6.2 of the Op Herne report says that:

1. The passport office has identified 1200 cases of people applying for duplicate passports in the name of dead people
2. 102 of these were SDS Officers

Who were the rest?


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 16, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> So 6.2 of the Op Herne report says that:
> Who were the rest?


 
well SDS Officers aren't going to be the only state employees who will have been working undercover using false identities so that could account for some of the others.  There could also be some informants offered new identities by which ever branch of the state they have helped with their enquiries.  Presumably the rest will be people trying to create a new identity without the approval of any government department.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> So 6.2 of the Op Herne report says that:
> 
> 1. The passport office has identified 1200 cases of people applying for duplicate passports in the name of dead people
> 2. 102 of these were SDS Officers
> ...


 
As eoin_k points out, a mix of other state employees, and non-state ne'erdowells.

Creedon notes that whilst this first report covers the preliminary stages of the investigation into the methods of the SDS, already they have found evidence that NPOIU continued the practice of stealing dead kids' identities from 1999 onwards, even though SDS itself had (by and large) discontinued the activity from around November 1994. It will be interesting to see how far into this Op Herne goes, given that whilst the name NPOIU is dead, organisationally it is extant, and with that has that old standby 'ongoing operational security' to lean on if necessary.

Whilst Creedon ultimately excuses the "morally repugnant" practice, he does also note that there is no reason to believe the practice limited to SDS and NPOIU.

One further piece of intrigue lies is in what is not said. The report emphasises the necessity of the 'dead child' method to build a legend that will stand moderate scrutiny; yet it is implied that by the time of the 1994 change in policy, other methods were in place that could be used to create a credible false identity. Anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 16, 2013)

yes. scarily plausible ideas. but I want to feel a bit safer before I say them here.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 25, 2013)

another one?
alledgedly Jason Bishop, Kilburn, animal right RTS, disarm dsei
from Netpol
http://netpol.org/2013/07/25/jason-bishop-new-allegations-of-undercover-policing-of-protest/


----------



## intersol32 (Jul 25, 2013)

ddraig said:


> another one?
> alledgedly Jason Bishop, Kilburn, animal right RTS, disarm dsei
> from Netpol
> http://netpol.org/2013/07/25/jason-bishop-new-allegations-of-undercover-policing-of-protest/


 

Saw this earlier. Very interesting. The authors of the Undercover book apparently hinted at this character. They also have claimed to be in possession of around a dozen other individuals who they're collecting information about, but didn't include in the book itself.

In the other instance people should be extremely wary of getting involved in witch hunts or wild speculations - otherwise you just end up doing the State's job for them.

To use a quote, we should keep calm heads and use this as a period of cool reflection.


----------



## gawkrodger (Aug 5, 2013)

Possibly speaking out of line here, but was just wondering why there has been so little media attention on Mark Kennedy's involvment with militant anti-fascism, the antifa conspiracy trial etc. I wouldn't be expecting anyone involved with such activities to be having a chat with journos, but I'm sure Paul Lewis etc have come across it in more depth than the couple of lines in which it has been discussed in the press/book


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 5, 2013)

gawkrodger said:


> Possibly speaking out of line here, but was just wondering why there has been so little media attention on Mark Kennedy's involvment with militant anti-fascism, the antifa conspiracy trial etc. I wouldn't be expecting anyone involved with such activities to be having a chat with journos, but I'm sure Paul Lewis etc have come across it in more depth than the couple of lines in which it has been discussed in the press/book


i don't trust paul lewis as far as i can throw him


----------



## gawkrodger (Aug 5, 2013)

hence my 'I wouldn't be expecting anyone to talk to journos' line!


----------



## free spirit (Aug 6, 2013)

fuck me, 4 of them involved in infiltrating the 2005 G8 protests within the Dissent network affiliates alone. We really must have had them worried.

I vaguely remember that manure van apparently getting busted before the geurilla gardening mayday, it had a bit of an impact if I remember right, mainly due to the loss of the van.

The arrest, then release without charge of the minibus at the G8 also never smelt right, assuming it was the minibus that got stopped and arrested when leaving the Glasgow convergence center. Too hectic at the time to think about it beyond the vague thought that it seemed pretty sus.

I had pinned that on kennedy in my head tbh, still reckon it could have been him that got them nicked in a complete balls up, not sure why they'd have deliberately arrested the entire group including their undercover officer, knowing they'd end up having to let them all go. Wouldn't surprise me at all if that had happened given the level of chaos and confusion generally going on with the police up there split across 3 sites in 3 cities and not really knowing what was going on (despite 4 under covers and counting), especially if Kennedy was NPOIU and Jason Bishop was SDS.

If I'm getting this right though, that was 2 full time minibus drivers we had out of the police budgets, plus 1 x part time first aid / medic / part time clown, and the minibus drivers were mainly doing runs to pick up those who'd been nicked from police stations and courts all over scotland for much of the time, and medics were dealing with a fairly serious food poisoning outbreak for much of the time, so I suppose we should almost be thankful for the police support.

[/waffle]


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 6, 2013)

free spirit said:


> be thankful for the police support.
> 
> [/waffle]


i hate that feeling 

AND NOT WAFFLE AT ALL.


i'm so sorry that these fuckers have done what they've done.


----------



## krink (Sep 14, 2013)

may be of interest to people on this thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039rwrl

undercover anti-extremist cop talks about edl.


----------



## newbie (Sep 15, 2013)

yes I heard that, meant to post a link but forgot, largely because he wasn't actually that compelling.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 15, 2013)

London people - Rob Evans, one of the authors of the Undercover book is speaking at Housmans on Wednesday.
http://www.housmans.com/events.php


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 15, 2013)

krink said:


> may be of interest to people on this thread
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039rwrl
> 
> undercover anti-extremist cop talks about edl.



I think it's reasonable to see that as a nice bit of PR for undercover cops. The intro said that 260 people got arrested at an EDL demo last weekend but didn't mention that most of them were counter protestors. Which builds a picture of the EDL being thugs, who presumably all right thinking Radio 4 listeners would want infiltrated. 

No questions about Kennedy et al abusing their positions, just vague allusions to criticisms in some newspapers. It even implied that the cop was a fluffy Guardian reader!


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 16, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> London people - Rob Evans, one of the authors of the Undercover book is speaking at Housmans on Wednesday.
> http://www.housmans.com/events.php


i'm not a london person, but am bobbing along* 



Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it's reasonable to see that as a nice bit of PR for undercover cops. The intro said that 260 people got arrested at an EDL demo last weekend but didn't mention that most of them were counter protestors. Which builds a picture of the EDL being thugs, who presumably all right thinking Radio 4 listeners would want infiltrated.
> 
> No questions about Kennedy et al abusing their positions, just vague allusions to criticisms in some newspapers. It even implied that the cop was a fluffy Guardian reader!


kennedy was. well, the guardian reader bit, at least.
edit: and thanks krink for the link - getting my computer to creak onto letting me have a look.

*probably maybe.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2013)

Mark Cassidy's 'ex' on Radio 4 Women's Hour right now.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2013)

And another woman, plus a policeman saying they can't investigate their officers if the women don't make full statements about their officers but they may not be their officers at all, won't confirm


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cv46z


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 18, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> And another woman, plus a policeman saying they can't investigate their officers if the women don't make full statements about their officers but they may not be their officers at all, won't confirm



that's not how i've been told it works, in terms of getting the police to admit who their officers are. by people what've done it 

just a heads up that Activists What Have Made A Film about all this are currently seeking funding: http://spiedupon.com/
i think it'll have my old kitchen it it 
and a possible undercover http://spiedupon.com/gallery/  :yay:


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> that's not how i've been told it works, in terms of getting the police to admit who their officers are. by people what've done it



They're crouching behind Neither Confirm Nor Deny http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/neither-confirm-nor-deny-practice-criticised/ which I imagine has been mentioned in this thread already.



> _“The application of the NCND policy by the police has led to the offensive scenario that those investigating the police have requested that our clients…….provide detailed statements and evidence documenting their relationships, whilst being denied even confirmation that the officers about whom they complain were undercover police operatives.”_



I was wrong - they are not confirming they were undercover officers, not they they are officers at all


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 18, 2013)

ah, gotya. i think. i think i misunderstood your post, then my post, and now your post again


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 18, 2013)

editty edit..
thanks for the radio link 5t3IIa - will listen this aft.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 18, 2013)

Mick Creedon's preliminary Operation Herne report bangs on about NCND as being a core operational necessity.

For example, currently the police lawyers are refusing to acknowledge 'Marco Jacobs' as an undercover officer (despite having previously been confirmed as such in  correspondence relating to official complaints).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 18, 2013)

Here we go:

Chief Constable Mick Creedon, who leads Operation Herne, to solicitor Harriet Wistrich, letter dated 12 August 2013:



> ...I have no hesitation in saying that we agree with the points you make at the start of your letter that this type of intimate sexual relationship whilst undercover should never be authorised. If such a relationship  were to take place then, of course, the activity would be subject to proper and thorough investigation to understand what had happened, what the implications are and what action should be taken.



http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/correspondence-released-by-birnberg-peirce-and-partners/

See also this:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t/18/undercover-police-and-policing-espionage


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2013)

heard a radio 4 (I think) interview this morning with one of the women involved and the copper heading up the investigation... well, I only caught the very end of the woman's bit.

The copper was saying that undercover officers having sex with women they were investigating would be a disciplinary matter, but they've all left the force, so can't be disciplined now... he also said that none of the women have so far actually given him a statement, and without these statements there's no possibility of criminal charges being laid against them.

Anyone know anything about why the women involved apparently won't give official statements to the police inquiry?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 18, 2013)

free spirit said:


> heard a radio 4 (I think) interview this morning with one of the women involved and the copper heading up the investigation... well, I only caught the very end of the woman's bit.



See upthread - already mentioned - it was _Woman's Hour_.



free spirit said:


> The copper was saying that undercover officers having sex with women they were investigating would be a disciplinary matter, but they've all left the force, so can't be disciplined now...



Intriguing, almost certainly disingenuous, and quite possibly a bald-faced lie. Andrew James Boyling was definitely a police officer in 2011 when he was publicly exposed (he was suspended pending an inquiry).



free spirit said:


> Anyone know anything about why the women involved apparently won't give official statements to the police inquiry?



A number of reasons, not least because (i) there is clear evidence that this is not a genuine search for truth; (ii) the police have told the women that they will not acknowledge whether these men were police officers due to NCND, whilst at the same time demanding that the women provide invasively detailed information, much of it of a personal, intimate nature, as if to 'prove' their involvement.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> A number of reasons, not least because (i) there is clear evidence that this is not a genuine search for truth; (ii) the police have told the women that they will not acknowledge whether these men were police officers due to NCND, whilst at the same time demanding that the women provide invasively detailed information, much of it of a personal, intimate nature, as if to 'prove' their involvement.


tbf though, he is right that there's no way the CPS will take this to court without that sort of evidence. 

I understand why they'd be reluctant, but if they don't give statements then there's absolutely no chance of a prosecution - plus it gives the police a get out of jail free card in terms of being able to blame the women involved for the lack of any prosecution.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 18, 2013)

free spirit said:


> tbf though, he is right that there's no way the CPS will take this to court without that sort of evidence.
> 
> I understand why they'd be reluctant, but if they don't give statements then there's absolutely no chance of a prosecution - plus it gives the police a get out of jail free card in terms of being able to blame the women involved for the lack of any prosecution.



Bit of a victim blamer on the sly, aren't you?

Plus this is not per se a criminal investigation. It's an inquiry, a review.

Refusing to cooperate in a whitewash has no effect on the quality of evidence that _can_ and _is_ being gathered, and which _can_ - and possibly _will be_ - presented before the courts.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> whilst at the same time demanding that the women provide invasively detailed information, much of it of a personal, intimate nature, as if to 'prove' their involvement.


I was responding to this bit.

For there to be any possibility of prosecutions now or in the future they will have to give evidence at some point to 'prove' their allegations and be prepared for the defense to be digging up anything they can to discredit them (unless the undercovers admit it all) - I'm sure that they and you are aware of this, it just makes the last part of your justification seem at best naive. 

Reading between the lines of your last post, and ignoring your pop at me for a minute, what I think you're probably getting at is that they're preferring to give their evidence in court in the civil action they've started rather than giving it to the internal police investigation for the reasons you gave.

If the interviewee had said this, or if you had said it in your posts, then that would have put the situation in an entirely different light.

As it was, the police were handed a get out of jail free card in that interview in the minds of anyone listening who doesn't know the case at all, and will continue to be able to use this unless the response to this point can be put across a lot better. 

Now back to that pop... go fuck yourself.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 26, 2013)

Judging from this short clip (about him at the July 2010 animal lib gathering in Italy), the forthcoming documentary should give some greater insight into the attempts by the by-then private sector Mark Kennedy (who'd left the Met in 2009) to infiltrate the AR movement:


----------



## ddraig (Nov 5, 2013)

is the ruling due today?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mark-kennedy-ruling-due-case-6271479


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

ddraig said:


> is the ruling due today?
> http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mark-kennedy-ruling-due-case-6271479


Yes, coming soon - @MattProdger will be good bet for first news.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 5, 2013)

cheers


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 5, 2013)

I'd stick with Jules Carey from Tuckers.

https://twitter.com/Jules_Carey/status/397678799737085952


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 5, 2013)

BOOM:



> #spycop judgment; para 32 MPs drafting RIPA wouldn't have foreseen 'extraordinary technique' of using sexual relations...
> 
> #SpyCop judgment: para 32 court bound to accept 'ordinary meaning' of RIPA words 'personal or other' to include sexual relations.
> 
> #SpyCop judgment: para 54/ Court accepts acknols defects of Investigatory Powers Tribunal & allows claims to proceed in court before IPT.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 5, 2013)

http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/statement-appeal-5-nov/



> _Below is the full text of a public statement from three of the women in this case. These three women, alongside three other claimants, appealed against their human rights claims being sent to a secret court. This statement is in response to the judgment on that appeal as handed down today at 10.30am, and it outlines *two key decisions *made by the Appeal judges._
> 
> *Public Statement: Tuesday November 5th 2013*
> 
> ...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 5, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I was responding to this bit.
> 
> For there to be any possibility of prosecutions now or in the future they will have to give evidence at some point to 'prove' their allegations and be prepared for the defense to be digging up anything they can to discredit them (unless the undercovers admit it all) - I'm sure that they and you are aware of this, it just makes the last part of your justification seem at best naive.
> 
> ...



You didn't even listen to the whole thing, you said so  I did, and as I said in the preceding 6-ish posts before yours (same page even, that you didn't pay any attention to either) - it was quite clear why the women are not giving statements and the interview with _Women's Hour _was, IMO, very even-handed and the inescapable conclusion in the minds of anyone listening was that the police were being extremely slippery. You're an idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

So, we need to know more about the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

edit: oh god, look at it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, we need to know more about the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
> 
> edit: oh god, look at it.




biographies of the eight members: http://www.ipt-uk.com/sections.asp?sectionID=7&type=side


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2013)

Seven men, one woman 

And the woman in question appears to specialise in ambulance chasing so I'm sure she's a paragon of human decency.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2013)

Some stuff:

Police tried to spy on Cambridge students, secret footage shows

Quite why the gaurdian though that it needed to point out that Cambridge University is an 800 year old institution i don't know.



> Smith wanted the activist to name students who were going on protests, list the vehicles they travelled in to demonstrations, and identify leaders of protests. He also asked the activist to search Facebook for the latest information about protests that were being planned.
> 
> The other proposed targets of the surveillance include UK Uncut, the campaign against tax avoidance and government cuts, Unite Against Fascism and environmentalists. The Cambridgeshire police initially insisted that there were implications for "national security" but later dropped this argument when challenged.
> 
> At another point, the activist asked whether a group known as Cambridge Defend Education, which has protested against tuition fees and education cuts, would be of interest. Smith replied: "That's the sort of thing that we would be looking for. Again, basic sort of stuff. It's all the internet. When they have meetings and they are discussing what they are going to do, that's when we'll say: 'Will you go along?'"


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Quite why the gaurdian though that it needed to point out that Cambridge University is an 800 year ol institution i don't know.


most of their readership went to redbrick universities?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 18, 2013)

Kennedy tried to beg a job off Stratfor before ending up at the somewhat less glitzy Densus:



> Ryan Sims
> Global Intelligence
> STRATFOR
> T: 512-744-4087 | F: 512-744-0570
> ...



http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=5512077


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 18, 2013)

In October 2011 - two months before his approach above - there seemed to be a buzz about him in Stratfor:



> Very impressive undercover work. another article about this guy here:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-cop-activist?intcmp=239
> 
> He sure looks like a dirty hippy.



http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=1677168



> This part is most interesting to me:
> 
> The documents state that planning meetings for the protest took place at Kennedy's house and he paid the court fees of another activist arising from a separate demonstration. "It is assumed that the finance for the accommodation, the hire of vehicles and the paying of fines came from police funds," they state.
> 
> ...



http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=1960134


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/.../undercover-police-and-policing-mark-kennedy?



> The rising tide of unjust convictions will be back on the agenda over the next couple of weeks.
> 
> The first case comes up tomorrow morning at the Court of Appeal when 29 environmental campaigners will have their appeal heard.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

Drax convictions quashed due to this. And someone is in trouble.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2014)

> One of the acquitted campaigners, Robbie Gillett, said: "In our trial in 2009, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service deliberately withheld evidence from the jury. They're not interested in providing a fair trial to the political activists which they spy upon.
> 
> "This is political policing. It is an invasion of people's lives, a waste of public money and from the police's perspective, a legal failure."
> 
> *Thomas said he was going to decide whether police or prosecutors should pay for costs of the wrongful prosecutions as he suggested those responsible for the misconduct should be required to pay.*


 Love it!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

Of all the things to laugh at that's not one - that's your money. It might be paid for insurance, but it's our money used.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2014)

sorry boss!
still just might make em think a tiny bit harder next time and they'll have a bit less for other operations

not going to explain how many times i've spotted and stopped 'our money' being wasted
take it quite seriously


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 21, 2014)

You can say what you like about Mark Kennedy, but there's no denying he looks just like one of those reconstructive models in The British Museum where they've added skin and hair to the skull of a early human.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 21, 2014)

Shifty looking c**t...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 21, 2014)

bignose1 said:


> Shifty looking c**t...View attachment 46955



I like Marty Feldman 

Mark Kennedy/Stone/whatever can fuck right off, though.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 21, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I like Marty Feldman
> 
> Mark Kennedy/Stone/whatever can fuck right off, though.


As i do...he does look shifty though with that glidy eye


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 21, 2014)

bignose1 said:


> As i do...he does look shifty though with that glidy eye



I guess that was part of his charm though.  Such a shame he died at a relatively young age, eh?


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 21, 2014)

Yeah it always got me thinking...he was one of a few tv funny people who were popping off way too early around late 70's early 80's There was a cluster around the time Leonard Rossiter died a few years later too if I remember.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 21, 2014)

That's right - didn't Leonard R pass away whilst performing in a version of the "Loot" stage play?  Another premature loss (see also:  Richard Beckinsale)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

ACCT - the state fights back.


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 21, 2014)

bignose1 said:


> As i do...he does look shifty though with that glidy eye


is this now part of the 'are they an undercover?' checklist then?
Ffs.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 21, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> That's right - didn't Leonard R pass away whilst performing in a version of the "Loot" stage play?  Another premature loss (see also:  Richard Beckinsale)


Thats right ...the others I recall around then were Richard Beckinsale, John Belushi


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 21, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> is this now part of the 'are they an undercover?' checklist then?
> Ffs.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ACCT - the state fights back.



Hi butchers - sorry, I'm being massively thick here (no surprise there then), but what does ACCT stand for?  (Did a Google search, and came across Assessment Care In Custody and Teamwork, but am not sure if that's what you mean).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Hi butchers - sorry, I'm being massively thick here (no surprise there then), but what does ACCT stand for?  (Did a Google search, and came across Assessment Care In Custody and Teamwork, but am not sure if that's what you mean).


I meant the ACTT - the old Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians. And frankly, i can't remember what connection i made a bit earlier. It was something to do with state infiltration.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I meant the ACTT - the old Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians. And frankly, i can't remember what connection i made a bit earlier. It was something to do with state infiltration.



Ah, thanks muchly for that - that certainly makes sense now.

Anyway, I'll stop derailing this thread with RIP reminisences, so we can all get back to the matter at hand.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2014)

A handy round-up of current issues from Police Spies Out Of Lives (support group for the women taking legal action against the police):



> *Today we announced that the next hearing in this case will take place in mid-March.* Alongside this case, here is a round-up of other developments in the struggle for justice and accountability over undercover policing – and how they link to this legal action:
> 
> *- This Monday 27 January, *in Southwark Crown Court, John Jordan, The Guardian, the BBC and the Press Association will be “challenging a decision by prosecutors to hush up a miscarriage of justice”. John Jordan’s conviction was quashed when it was revealed Boyling (who one of the officers involved in this case had given ‘evidence’ without revealing his true identity. Rob Evans of The Guardian reports: “Jordan will be seeking to compel prosecutors to tell him why his conviction was unsafe, with the help of his barrister, Matthew Ryder. The three media organisations will also argue that there is a very strong public interest in disclosing to the public the confidential reasons behind the quashing of the conviction.” Read more here.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 28, 2014)

FYI:



> *Did police spy Mark Jenner help prevent justice in the David Ewin murder case? *



Mark Jenner, AKA ‘Mark Cassidy’, was an undercover police spy deployed in north London in the mid-1990s. He had a particular interest in construction workers (i.e. blacklist-related stuff), police accountability campaigns such as that run by Hackney Community Defence Association, Irish republicans and Anti-Fascist Action.

From Mark Metcalf's blog

_Cross-posted because this cuts across various threads_


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 29, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> You can say what you like about Mark Kennedy, but there's no denying he looks just like one of those reconstructive models in The British Museum where they've added skin and hair to the skull of a early human.



Dylan Moran can play him in the movie.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2014)

Monbiot writes Boyling could have turned J18 nasty by targeting Liffe
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/undercover-officer-major-riot-john-jordan
reckons public inquiry needed


> Jordan has now made a further claim. He alleges that the same man helped organise a street party that went wrong and turned into the worst riot in London since the poll tax demonstrations. The J18 Carnival Against Global Capitalism on 18 June 1999 went well beyond non-violent protest. According to the police, 42 people were injured and over £1m of damage was done. One building was singled out: the London International Financial Futures Exchange (Liffe), where derivatives were traded. Though protesters entered the building at 1.40pm, the police did not arrive until 4.15pm.





> Jordan was a member of "the logistics group that organised the tactics for J18. There were about 10 of us in the group and we met weekly for over six months." Among the other members, he says, was Boyling. "The 10 of us … were the only people who knew the whole plan before the day itself and who had decided that the main target would be Liffe." Boyling, he alleges, drove one of the two cars that were used to block the road to the building.


----------



## laptop (Feb 3, 2014)

Hmmm.

I remember there being two actions at Liffe: first some people bricked up the entrance; then others arrived, broke through the bricks and tried to run up an escalator into a wall of goons.

No-one, and especially not people who might have been on the logistics group, would discuss how that happened.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 3, 2014)

The action with the bricks was utter pants. There were outside LIFFE a collection of paid heavies one of whom looked very like Lenny McClean. I sauntered over and told them whatever they were getting paid, it was not enough and that they might like to fuck off. A hail of bricks rained down and off they fucked. I was busy for a bit so did not try and storm the building. I also was sus enough to know that fighting your way up escalators is a bad idea.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 3, 2014)

Has anyone sighted that Kennedy duckweed?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 3, 2014)

laptop said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> I remember there being two actions at Liffe: first some people bricked up the entrance; then others arrived, broke through the bricks and tried to run up an escalator into a wall of goons.
> 
> No-one, and especially not people who might have been on the logistics group, would discuss how that happened.


The whole way that article is framed by Monbiot does not give a particularly strong idea of how RTS planned, or how J18 in particularly was planned. Logisitcs was only one of several groups which met very regularly for more than six months in preparation.

J18 was also conceived of as a day when the action would not be centred around a single, spectacular event which people would passively consume, but where there would (also) be a wealth of separate-but-connected autonomous happenings all across the Square Mile at various times throughout the day, with a critical mass of people around in a relatively small geographical area.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 3, 2014)

As a PS: Monbiot got a righteous slapdown from _Squall_ magazine in 2000 over his “bilious attack” on RTS (see Stowe/Oxford-educated Monbiot's website here for the exchange of letters) (which was also referenced by MediaLens a couple of years later).

A taste:



> We’re used to the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Times proffering the ‘Anarchist yobs takeover’ and ‘RTS stockpile weapons’ style of coverage. But this time the usual suspects were joined by an onslaught of critical barrage from pseudo-friends of the movement like Oxbridge journo, George Monbiot. Content to have established a career based on his connections to the UK direct action scene, it is a bitter truth that Monbiot might accept thirty pieces of Guardian silver for an exaggerated kiss and tell onslaught against RTS.
> 
> For those who missed George Monbiot’s bilious attack, a wade through the spluttered outrage can be spared with a summary of his main points. Liberally peppered with the language and metaphor of utter condemnation, he stated that RTS’s ranks are swollen with violent and uncaring thugs, and that, having lost the plot completely, RTS are “a part of the problem not the solution”. Furthermore, and perhaps most hypocritically, he stated that planting seeds outside the Houses of Parliament was a “futile” action against capitalism.
> 
> Four years ago, Monbiot was content to wallow in the acres of column inches which revolved around “The Oxford don and his rag-bag army” when as one of a hundred or so activists on The Land is Ours’ first action at Wisley, he planted vegetables and trees on a small stretch of long disused WW2 airfield in Surrey. Monbiot launched his career in British journalism off the back of his association with that action, with the Daily Telegraph running a whole page on the “ideological leader” Monbiot and his French aristocratic ancestry. There were many of his co-activists on that direct action who felt the agenda being pilfered even at that stage...


----------



## laptop (Feb 3, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The whole way that article is framed by Monbiot does not give a particularly strong idea of how RTS planned, or how J18 in particularly was planned. Logisitcs was only one of several groups which met very regularly for more than six months in preparation.



Agreed 

And of course Monbiot wouldn't educate anyone about non-hierarchical clandestine organising. See above.

From the extract, I rushed to the conclusion that there was something critical about the Liffe stuff. Reading the article properly, it contains just one new piece of information: Someone has told Monbiot that Boyling was in the logistics group.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 3, 2014)

laptop said:


> Someone has told Monbiot that Boyling was in the logistics group.



Yes



> 22. Statement sent to me by John Jordan, 24th January 2014


----------



## free spirit (Feb 4, 2014)

So was this that the MET knew the location but didn't share with City of London police due to territorial pissing contests, and / or some desire to protect their sources, or did Jim not actually pass the information on?

or did we genuinely wrong foot them by taking responsibility for leading the 4 different coloured processions from liverpool street to groups from outside the capital that they hadn't infiltrated (AFAIK), plus all the decentralised actions?

Personally I reckon they needed to allow it to kick off to justify the costs of their operation, and didn't really give a fuck as it wasn't on their turf / actually wanted city police to have to call them in to remind them who was really in charge, plus they probably wouldn't have entirely trusted their info given how decentralised a lot of stuff that was going on was.

and the general plan for the day was a fucking good plan, with lots of potential reserve targets around if LIFFE hadn't been possible.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 4, 2014)

ps I finally tracked picture down of me on the day...






That leg hanging down of the ledge top left below the banner.... that was my perch for a bit longer than I really wanted it to be due to having climbed up to use it as a dancing platform, then realised getting down was going to be problematic.

I had a great view of what was going on for a while with the whole bricking up thing, but was pretty glad when someone magicked a ladder up for me just as I'd spotted a big black amorphous blob of riot police heading down the road towards LIFFE.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2014)

detective-boy said:


> He went and gathered information as directed. That is a perfectly lawful order and has _nothing_ to do with whether he had anything personal against them or not.
> 
> And "stitched up" usually means framed using false evidence.  Please provide your evidence for the allegation that this officer provided false evidence resulting in unsafe convictions.



Pity detective-boy isn't around any more, I have some words I'd like him to eat.


----------



## albionism (Feb 4, 2014)

Does anyone know the name of the punky-reggae band that played at J18 ?
They were a lot of fun and i remember feeling very sorry for the singer
who was clad in a tight leather jacket and looking dangerously sweaty on
such a lovely warm day . I remember they sang a song about growing weed, if that helps!


----------



## Limerick Red (Feb 4, 2014)

Wasn't there but sounds like P.A.I.N?


albionism said:


> Does anyone know the name of the punky-reggae band that played at J18 ?
> They were a lot of fun and i remember feeling very sorry for the singer
> who was clad in a tight leather jacket and looking dangerously sweaty on
> such a lovely warm day . I remember they sang a song about growing weed, if that helps!


snt t


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pity detective-boy isn't around any more, I have some words I'd like him to eat.


Haven't you seen him whoring himself around the 24 hour rolling news studios of the nation, an opinion-for-hire on any issue even tangentially linked to policing? That ‘Boy’ has been eating all he needs to and more. Donuts in the green room?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 4, 2014)

Yeah this bullshit that a select few planned the mayhem of the day is just that, bullshit. There were loads of groups organising, some open many not. Lots of others did not bother making definite plans and knew by experience that it was going to be a lively day, you just needed to turn up with mischief in your heart. 

It was a cracking day, I was celebrating the birth of my son and friends from all over turned up and assisted me to celebrate in a very vigorous manner. 

As for the police stuff, the Met have little love for the City Police, often asserting that the city lot are over resourced, and could be run by one decent sergeant. That said, the City lot would have been very reluctant to call for help early on. They really thought they could handle it but given the excellent tactics on the day of multiple actions all over, their resources were split and chaotically applied.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 4, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Haven't you seen him whoring himself around the 24 hour rolling news studios of the nation, an opinion-for-hire on any issue even tangentially linked to policing? That ‘Boy’ has been eating all he needs to and more. Donuts in the green room?


Pics!!!!!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2014)

Bizzare article by monbiot.

J18 pretty was a brilliant, inspirational, iconic action that kicked off the whole anti-capitalist thing. It should be celebrated - not something to be embarrassed about and then dismissed as teh result  of police provetouring. At that time being against capitalism was almost like being against breathing and events like J18 forced open a space for dissent.

And within ten years they were proved spectacularly correct as all the screens in the square mile went red and the wheels came off the whole money machine. They should have listened to crazed hooligans shouldn't they?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Haven't you seen him whoring himself around the 24 hour rolling news studios of the nation, an opinion-for-hire on any issue even tangentially linked to policing? That ‘Boy’ has been eating all he needs to and more. Donuts in the green room?



I don't watch rolling news, or any TV news for that matter. And I have no idea what detective-boy's real name is. Oddly enough we never met up for a coffee and a chat in real life.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Bizzare article by monbiot.
> 
> J18 pretty was a brilliant, inspirational, iconic action that kicked off the whole anti-capitalist thing. It should be celebrated - not something to be embarrassed about and then dismissed as teh result  of police provetouring. At that time being against capitalism was almost like being against breathing and events like J18 forced open a space for dissent.
> 
> And within ten years they were proved spectacularly correct as all the screens in the square mile went red and the wheels came off the whole money machine. They should have listened to crazed hooligans shouldn't they?



J18 was before my time but reading the accounts of it it seems like something that was way ahead of the curve, not just in the level of organisation but in choosing Liffe as a target, back when I doubt most people even knew what derivatives trading even was, much less the damage it was capable of causing.


----------



## cesare (Feb 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> J18 was before my time but reading the accounts of it it seems like something that was way ahead of the curve, not just in the level of organisation but in choosing Liffe as a target, back when I doubt most people even knew what derivatives trading even was, much less the damage it was capable of causing.


It wasn't *that* long ago


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2014)

People have been emphasising the enlarged role that finance capital now has in the wider system for nearly 50 years now Frank - really don't think that was anything out of the ordinary. In fact, just look back at Stop the city in the early 80s.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Bizzare article by monbiot.
> 
> J18 pretty was a brilliant, inspirational, iconic action that kicked off the whole anti-capitalist thing. It should be celebrated - not something to be embarrassed about and then dismissed as teh result  of police provetouring. At that time being against capitalism was almost like being against breathing and events like J18 forced open a space for dissent.
> 
> And within ten years they were proved spectacularly correct as all the screens in the square mile went red and the wheels came off the whole money machine. They should have listened to crazed hooligans shouldn't they?


so not the actions against the g8 in birmingham in 1998.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so not the actions against the g8 in birmingham in 1998.


Yep, often forgotten about.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> People have been emphasising the enlarged role that finance capital now has in the wider system for nearly 50 years now Frank - really don't think that was anything out of the ordinary. In fact, just look back at Stop the city in the early 80s.



Maybe I just wasn't paying much attention to this sort of stuff when I was 14.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> People have been emphasising the enlarged role that finance capital now has in the wider system for nearly 50 years now Frank - really don't think that was anything out of the ordinary. In fact, just look back at Stop the city in the early 80s.


Stop The City was an avowed inspiration for what became J18, with key help from people who had been involved in STC as organisers or participants.

For many months ‘Stop The City’ was the name under which it was being organised, before ‘Carnival Against Capitalism’ and the shorthand ‘J18’ appellation emerged.



Pickman's model said:


> so not the actions against the g8 in birmingham in 1998.



Indeed - J18 did not come out of nowhere, it was part of a continuum; it was not a magic ‘panacea protest’, it was imperfect. But a confluence of timing, circumstances, ideas, commitment (plus the best part of a year of planning and preparation) etc all helped to ensure it was memorable.

That a very similar recipe applied just six months later (the London N30 events) led to such a different outcome (assisted by Met in policing lead, burn-out, shorter turnaround, less clearly defined objectives, wider area of operations, a news media hungry for a telegenic and simple to follow narrative, new police tactics, a tension between the desire of some organisers to go more low-key and those who wanted to offer up a similar spectacular, etc),  shows that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and romantic attachment to a single way of working is not particularly helpful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe I just wasn't paying much attention to this sort of stuff when I was 14.


you were wasting your time on girls i suppose.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 4, 2014)

albionism said:


> Does anyone know the name of the punky-reggae band that played at J18 ?
> They were a lot of fun and i remember feeling very sorry for the singer
> who was clad in a tight leather jacket and looking dangerously sweaty on
> such a lovely warm day . I remember they sang a song about growing weed, if that helps!


 
yeah, i think it was PAIN too.



J18 was a great day but i have long suspected that some agents provocateurs were involved.  but that's to be expected.  who cares, we owned london for a while.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you were wasting your time on girls i suppose.



You could not be more wrong, sadly


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so not the actions against the g8 in birmingham in 1998.



Fair point. I wasn't aware of that one at the time - but j18 was well publicised before hand and made a big splash. The point was that as a symbolic protest it acted as a beacon at a time when there was no anti-capitalist narrative beyond the fag end of old labour and the trots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Fair point. I wasn't aware of that one at the time - but j18 was well publicised before hand and made a big splash. The point was that as a symbolic protest it acted as a beacon at a time when there was no anti-capitalist narrative beyond the fag end of old labour and the trots.


i thought the point which was being made was that it was more than symbolick. as for 'no anti-capitalist narrative' i seem to recall the late 90s as a time not perhaps of halcyon days but certainly when there were things going on - rts for example.


----------



## laptop (Feb 4, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Fair point. I wasn't aware of that one at the time - but j18 was well publicised before hand and made a big splash.



Arguably, it's partly because the media realised they'd *missed* something with the Birmingham event that j18 got publicity in the run-up.

Then, of course, it bled and it led.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2014)

laptop said:


> Arguably, it's partly because the media realised they'd *missed* something with the Birmingham event that j18 got publicity in the run-up.



The Publicity/Design/Publications groups worked very hard to help generate awareness weeks and months in the lead up to 18 June. In addition to the _Squaring Up To The Square Mile_ book/map there were the A2-sized gold/black posters, the fold-out gold/black flyers, vast quantities of stickers, and a huge print run of _Evading Standards_.

With regular and persistent stickering/flyering/postering, as well as six months of pirate radio broadcasts plugging the event, I suspect that the ubiquity of all this material around London had more of an effect on those managing the UK media than something that happened more than a year previous in A Small Provincial Town Somewhere.


----------



## albionism (Feb 4, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> yeah, i think it was PAIN too.
> 
> 
> 
> J18 was a great day but i have long suspected that some agents provocateurs were involved.  but that's to be expected.  who cares, we owned london for a while.



Yep, that's the song i heard that day.


----------



## laptop (Feb 4, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The Publicity/Design/Publications groups worked very hard...



Of course I'm not denying the hard work. I know how much was done. I was just pointing to one thing that was there to work *with*.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 4, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> That a very similar recipe applied just six months later (the London N30 events) led to such a different outcome (assisted by Met in policing lead, burn-out, shorter turnaround, less clearly defined objectives, wider area of operations, a news media hungry for a telegenic and simple to follow narrative, new police tactics, a tension between the desire of some organisers to go more low-key and those who wanted to offer up a similar spectacular, etc),  shows that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and romantic attachment to a single way of working is not particularly helpful.


thing is, N30 had some major differences in organisation to J18.

J18 had full buy in from the regional Earth First affiliated protest groups who each brought down between a dozen to 2 dozen experienced autonomous activist affinity groups flying completely under the police radar who were able to take on key elements of the protest organisation on the day, as well as virtually all the autonomous actions in the morning (aside from the critical mass), and crucially remove it from the grasps of the police infiltrators within the London group. I believe the same pretty much applied to the sound system crews.

N30 London had no buy in at all from the regional groups if I remember right, so was presumably organised almost entirely by a group that had at least 1 undercover copper embeded at its heart, so the police would have known everything being planned well in advance, with very few surprise elements. It was also on a Tuesday rather than a Saturday - part of the reason for the lack of support.

Basically one was a national level protest on a weekend, the other was a London only affair on a weekday, yet the organisers targeted Bond Street in an action that needed 10 times the numbers to succeed that it was ever likely to attract.

I actually think that the failure of some to understand these factors was also largely responsible for Mayday the year after turning into a bit of a wash out despite having a huge turnout, due at least in part to a lack of ambition stemming from the N30 experience and a fear that this would be repeated. That Mayday did again have support from groups around the UK, but we weren't really asked to do much, so I ended up with a few thousand people cut off in Traf square with nowt to do while those who actually knew the plan was to stay put in Parliament square had stayed put.

After that, I think that the London organisers really didn't appreciate that Mayday was a day that there were lots of long running activities happening on regionally, so the Mayday events mainly didn't get much support from outside London after 2000.

To give an idea of what the levels of input I'm talking about from the regional groups, I'd say that about 90% of the work to set up and run the Stirling G8 protest campsite, and Glasgow and Edinburgh convergence centres came from these same regional groups, with minimal input from London... I'm not saying this as a criticism of London groups (erm well maybe a little), as I know the wombles at the time were being heavily policed, and it actually worked quite well for wombles to mostly be in Edinburgh / Glasgow as the Met were sure they were the core organisers, so split their forces a lot more than they would have done otherwise... I'm mostly using it as evidence of the organisational capacity of the regional groups that were involved in J18, missing on N30, prepared to be involved, but largely ignored on Mayday etc.

The police seem to have realised this point as well, as they seem to have focused their undercover work on regional groups in the build up to the G8 protests.

That's my analysis of the situation anyway, I'll admit to having little idea of the inner workings of London RTS at the time - the basic thesis of it being that successful national level protests need to have national buy in, and this takes time and effort to gain. Targets of what's actually achievable with the protest should really be adjusted according to the level of support promised from outside London, and from none core London groups to avoid either ending up biting off far more than can be chewed, or with far too many people for the activity planned for.

Not that I'm even sure how many of the regional activist groups are in any way active still, I certainly haven't been in that way since 2005/6. I'd think that most could be persuaded out of retirement though


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 5, 2014)

free spirit said:


> thing is, N30 was absolutely nothing like J18 in the organisational method.
> 
> J18 had full buy in from the regional Earth First affiliated protest groups who each brought down between a dozen to 2 dozen experienced autonomous activist affinity groups flying completely under the police radar who were able to take on key elements of the protest organisation on the day, as well as virtually all the autonomous actions in the morning (aside from the critical mass), and crucially remove it from the grasps of the police infiltrators within the London group. I believe the same pretty much applied to the sound system crews.



I wouldn't disagree with the gist of this. The perceived success of J18 was built on a solid 9-12 months of hard work by a lot of people across the country (and internationally), and not just one group in London. The level of that success also - I believe - far outstripped the expectations of most.



free spirit said:


> N30 London had no buy in at all from the regional groups if I remember right, so was presumably organised almost entirely by a group that had at least 1 undercover copper embeded at its heart, so the police would have known everything being planned well in advance, with very few surprise elements. It was also on a Tuesday rather than a Saturday - part of the reason for the lack of support.
> 
> Basically one was a national level protest on a weekend, the other was a London only affair on a weekday, yet the organisers targeted Bond Street in an action that needed 10 times the numbers to succeed that it was ever likely to attract.



Also to consider is how the success of J18 - principally built around the EF! network with RTS London (and HSG, LGP and other hardy perennials) as the driving force both in terms of dominating the discourse and providing the organising methodology - attracted more groups, more people into the run-up to the London N30 activities. N30 open organising meetings followed the same format as for J18, but many of the people who had been involved previously were going to Seattle, or had burned out, or for other reasons were not involved this time; in their place - and this is to be celebrated - were the likes of London CW, IBT etc, who wanted to be part of it, and to help shape it.

On the other hand, there was a sense from some of those RTS London people still around that they wanted to diffuse expectations that J18 had built up, and to frame the day in London as less of a singlular, big spectacular and more clearly part of a global day of action.

Add into this a recognition that there simply was not the energy, resources or time to replicate the serendipity of J18, and things were never likely to turn out even similar. After all, in the six months between the two, _The Eleven O'Clock Show_ had recuperated the anti-capitalist movement, and in an early stunt Ali G was bimbling around trying to get earnest-but-friendly hippies to say stupid/predictable things in a train station as Sky News crews hovered around in expectation of a lunchtime riot... Different conditions in many ways.



free spirit said:


> I actually think that the failure of some to understand these factors was also largely responsible for Mayday the year after turning into a bit of a wash out despite having a huge turnout, due at least in part to a lack of ambition stemming from the N30 experience and a fear that this would be repeated. That Mayday did again have support from groups around the UK, but we weren't really asked to do much, so I ended up with a few thousand people cut off in Traf square with nowt to do while those who actually knew the plan was to stay put in Parliament square had stayed put.
> 
> After that, I think that the London organisers really didn't appreciate that Mayday was a day that there were lots of long running activities happening on regionally, so the Mayday events mainly didn't get much support from outside London after 2000.



Certainly in Bristol, in parallel to the M2K activities in London, there was a similar week of well-attended events and actions in 2000. _Do Or Die_'s article rings true. But as with the J18 > N30 shift (and attempts to mitigate expectations), I detected a similar drive towards de-escalation in the preparations for the London May Day 2000 activities. Along the lines of, confounding expectations of what an RTS London day of action should be (eg publicise a meeting point away from the final target, make oblique references to what might happen, entice people in; instead becomes, “guerilla gardening in Parliament Square”), whilst also _trying to provide an inoffensive activity for people who turn up off the back of the past successes_ - that is, to avoid delivering thousands of people with little idea of what to do into what would subsequently be considered a kettle, and place them in unnecessary danger.



free spirit said:


> To give an idea of what the levels of input I'm talking about from the regional groups, I'd say that about 90% of the work to set up and run the Stirling G8 protest campsite, and Glasgow and Edinburgh convergence centres came from these same regional groups, with minimal input from London... I'm not saying this as a criticism of London groups (erm well maybe a little), as I know the wombles at the time were being heavily policed, and it actually worked quite well for wombles to mostly be in Edinburgh / Glasgow as the Met were sure they were the core organisers, so split their forces a lot more than they would have done otherwise... I'm mostly using it as evidence of the organisational capacity of the regional groups that were involved in J18, missing on N30, prepared to be involved, but largely ignored on Mayday etc.



The WOMBLES were certainly handy shit-sponges at the 2001 DSEI 



free spirit said:


> The police seem to have realised this point as well, as they seem to have focused their undercover work on regional groups in the build up to the G8 protests.



Well, quite - SDS (which deployed Jim Boyling AKA Jim Sutton into RTS 1995-2000) was run by Met Special Branch, and was largely London-centric.

Whereas the NPOIU (set up in 1998 and operational by 1999), whilst ‘sponsored’ by the Met, consolidated earlier intelligence-gathering units in a single, nationally-orientated organisation. It took over the likes of ARNI, Essex Police's pioneering animal rights and environmental protest database (later closely associated with Hampshire Constabulary); Wiltshire's traveller-tracking Operation Snapshot and Southern Central Intelligence Unit/SIU; Avon & Somerset's free festival-busting Operation Nomad; and so on.

But then also anyone with a cursory familiarity with the activist networks on the 1990s could see that there were significant hubs of activity outside of the capital - Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Manchester, Nottingham, Brighton, Bristol etc - and yet until the formalisation of NPOIU, SDS appears to have lacked the ability to cope with anything not primarily organised in London.

Rambling now. Bed.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 5, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> But as with the J18 > N30 shift (and attempts to mitigate expectations), I detected a similar drive towards de-escalation in the preparations for the London May Day 2000 activities. Along the lines of, confounding expectations of what an RTS London day of action should be (eg publicise a meeting point away from the final target, make oblique references to what might happen, entice people in; instead becomes, “guerilla gardening in Parliament Square”), whilst also _trying to provide an inoffensive activity for people who turn up off the back of the past successes_ - that is, to avoid delivering thousands of people with little idea of what to do into what would subsequently be considered a kettle, and place them in unnecessary danger.


Problem is, I think most people just assumed this was a bit of a ruse, and there would be a party going on as well. Fact of the matter was that there was only kit for a few dozen to actually participate in any gardening, so obviously the other few thousand were going to need something to do - whether that was actually dancing to a rig, or running rings around the police on a loop around the block and back or something.

I've been told there was a rig that tried to get in, but mistimed it and ended up the wrong side of police lines. It'd have been a very different experience in trafalgar square if it had got in, as it was I think there was one little drum in the entire place, and not enough up for it to break out.

I suspect that very few of those who were trapped in traf square would have been back the next year.

I reckon the actual master stroke would have been to have had half of us go off up to traf square, but then keep going and end up back at Parliament square - it seemed like there were at least 2 different plans going on on the day, as I know flyers were distributed telling people to follow the red flags, and stay when the green flags were spotted (or something like that)... I gave a few hundred out myself, so when the samba band started up and a couple of red flags were spotted, it's no wonder half the people in the square set off. I suspect the actual flags were probably in the van that got busted or something.

bit odd to still be discussing this 14 years later, but it's an interesting trip down memory road, and who knows, maybe the lessons to be taught and learnt from all this might come in useful in the not too distant future.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 6, 2014)

albionism said:


> Does anyone know the name of the punky-reggae band that played at J18 ?
> They were a lot of fun and i remember feeling very sorry for the singer
> who was clad in a tight leather jacket and looking dangerously sweaty on
> such a lovely warm day . I remember they sang a song about growing weed, if that helps!





Limerick Red said:


> Wasn't there but sounds like P.A.I.N?





el-ahrairah said:


> yeah, i think it was PAIN too.





You asked the same question (and got the same answer) getting on for five years ago 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/j18-10th-anniversary.217514/#post-7819157


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 6, 2014)

For anyone interested in finding out more about J18, N30, A16, S26 and the other ‘global days of action’ of the late 1990s and early 2000s, you may find this index thread of interest:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...political-actions-an-index-of-threads.320332/


----------



## albionism (Feb 6, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> You asked the same question (and got the same answer) getting on for five years ago
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/j18-10th-anniversary.217514/#post-7819157


Yeah, so i did


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 5, 2014)

The Ellison Review is due to be published tomorrow...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-murder-report-police-corruption-allegations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lleged-police-corruption-to-be-published.html

(Cross-posted)


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2014)

laptop said:


> Arguably, it's partly because the media realised they'd *missed* something with the Birmingham event that j18 got publicity in the run-up.
> 
> Then, of course, it bled and it led.



The Birmingham G8 demo was the first globally co-ordinated Street party iirc.


----------



## laptop (Mar 6, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> The Birmingham G8 demo was the first globally co-ordinated Street party iirc.



That's my recollection too...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2014)

Of particular interest to the spycopwatchers - apparently Mick Creedon will be releasing the next Operation Herne report today:



> * Initial MPS response on publication of the Ellison Report: *
> 
> Mark Ellison, QC has received the full support of the Metropolitan Police Service in the research for his report.
> 
> ...



Given Francis has, let's say, _refined_ some of his claims with regard SDS being tasked with spying on the Lawrence family and ‘Black justice groups’, whilst simultaneously Ellison and Morgan have turned over several muckspreaders-worth of new shit from a wide range of sources on both the spycops and the crap/bent Lawrence murder investigations, that could be interesting...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2014)

Operation Herne's second report - on Peter Francis' allegations - is available to download now:

http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Doc...--Report-2---Allegations-of-Peter-Francis.pdf


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2014)

From page 44 of Herne 2:



> *There is evidence within the ‘tradecraft’ document which provides informal tacit authority and guidance for officers faced with the prospect of a sexual relationship.* No evidence has been found of sexual activity ever being explicitly authorised and to date no evidence of sexual activity being utilised as a management supported tactic to aid infiltration has been found.
> 
> It has been identified that officers were provided with limited instruction and in effect left to make individual choices while operationally deployed. There is evidence of some managers within the SDS expressly forbidding sexual relationships. Officers have admitted to inappropriate sexual relationship whilst deployed undercover. There is no evidence SDS management between 1993 -1997 endorsed or authorised the activity. *The ‘Tradecraft’ document provides advice recommending that if there is no other option officers should try to have fleeting and disastrous relationship.*


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2014)

It should be noted that OpHerne 2 appears to be somewhat disingenuous in parts.

For example, at page 45 it states:



> There is no doubt that the conduct of undercover officers engaging in sexual relationships is complicated in that their training was unstructured and ad-hoc.



However, this can only be accurate when taken in regard of SDS. As the HMIC report on undercover policing noted, there were “distinct differences between SDS and NPOIU training, tactics, review and integration”, notably use of accredited national police training courses, engagement with police professional development bodies, operational reviews four times a year, and force integration nationally (p38).

In the same section of Herne 2, the authors attempt to downplay the level of sexual relationships by SDS (or other undercover) officers:



> Only one (1) evidential account has been provided.


 (p3)

and



> Only one (1) evidential account has been provided to the investigation.


 (p45)

Yet this is a report which, taken in the round, indicates that it considers Peter Francis to be an untrustworthy witness - but curiously also states that “there is credibility to a number of matters that have been raised by Peter Francis, particularly those regarding the use of deceased children’s identities and sexual relationships which are both corroborated in some.” (p70)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2014)

So, big Newsnight show on Ellison, Herne 2, the botched Lawrence murder inquiry, SDS and undercover political policing.

And who is on the roundtable to put forward the police perspective? A big hitter, maybe an ex-Chief Constable, at least a DAC or something?

No. 

detective-boy


----------



## ddraig (Mar 6, 2014)

did it have a hissy fit?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2014)

No, but he looked like a tool, trying to _lecture the father of a boy brutally murdered_ (in a racially-motivated attack by a gang who had previously committed similar crimes, none of which had been properly investigated by racist, inept or corrupt cops, etc) that in America there was the “Rodney King riots” and stuff, so, you know, spies in your living room whilst you're grieving is totally fine.

On the other hand, he was woefully underinformed about the detail of SDS, NPOIU and the rest, so pretty much pointless having him on to speculate and opinionise... Except he is an experienced SIO, which means he might have valuable insight into the running of a successful murder investigation. But he wasn't asked about that aspect.

His one decent point was to note that SDS was set up by politicians (to meet political objectives), and directly funded by the Home Office. Let's all remember that before anyone starts beatifying the likes of Theresa May.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 7, 2014)

Re SDS records being destroyed. I had a look at the MPS Records Management Manual. Their staff career history is apparently kept for 100 years and it shouldn't be a great ask for MPS HR to work out who was in the SDS as no doubt there's a great big stamp on their files. MPS minutes are also supposed to be kept for 7 years. Now, if they're anything like the large organizations I've worked in, minutes from one department will generally be sent to people from another area - e.g. the minutes of a staff-student consultative committee would be sent to a higher level where all the similar committees minutes ended up. So I would be rather surprised if material from the SDS had not been sent to the Commissioner's office, or at the very least to the head of Special Branch / Counter Terrorism Command. In my view it's bollocks to suppose that every trace of the SDS has been eliminated, it's still there and it all depends which stones the IPCC or any judge-led enquiry decide to look under.

Oh - that records management manual - http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/other_information/corporate/records_management_manual_2014.pdf


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> ...or at the very least to the head of Special Branch / Counter Terrorism Command.



Especially given the multiple levels over oversight on AT/“domestic extremism” issues, with AC (SO), Senior National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism (née National Coordinator Terrorism Investigations), the Chair and Vice-Chairs of ACPO (TAM), and the Commander of CTC all having fingers in the pie (in addition to the Met Commissioner, and several other Cheif Constables nationally, whose forces lead on various issues which intersect with those of CTC).

And that's before one considers the Home Office, FCO and MOD mandarins involved, and - of course - the politicians whom they serve.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 7, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Especially given the multiple levels over oversight on AT/“domestic extremism” issues, with AC (SO), Senior National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism (née National Coordinator Terrorism Investigations), the Chair and Vice-Chairs of ACPO (TAM), and the Commander of CTC all having fingers in the pie (in addition to the Met Commissioner, and several other Cheif Constables nationally, whose forces lead on various issues which intersect with those of CTC).
> 
> And that's before one considers the Home Office, FCO and MOD mandarins involved, and - of course - the politicians whom they serve.


having delved into the wonderful world of met police records management i am very surprised how quickly they get rid of stuff (see also http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/november/2011090003649.pdf as well as the records management file i link to above). local authorities generally keep (or are meant to keep) all minutes of committee meetings, plus they will accrue within the archives a range of administrative material. i would be taken aback if there isn't some storage of senior management team minutes beyond the seven years mark, plus a range of other documents, even if only for the purposes of an institutional memory. public order material, for example, could be very useful for them in terms of illustrating how things have been done like how the 2001 oxford circus kettle was organised. in addition, i would not be surprised if individuals who had served in special branch or sds or whatnot had retained records. the shredders will be busy in nsy tho i'm sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 7, 2014)

and another thing, further to dave cinzano's post #1779 - i would have thought that the police would have mentioned to the former metropolitan police authority, or at least the mayor, that there were a number of longterm undercover operations going on so yer man was not caught out on the hop when / if they were revealed.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> in addition, i would not be surprised if individuals who had served in special branch or sds or whatnot had retained records. the shredders will be busy in nsy tho i'm sure.



If _some people_ had not retained _certain paperwork_ then it seems unlikely that Lewis and Evans could have strung out their book to 300+ pages, or given reference to approximately 50 distinct SDS undercover identities (yet only around a dozen NPOIU).

Who knows what sort of documentary souvenirs a legacy-obsessed narcissist such as Prof Bob keeps in his garage?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and another thing, further to dave cinzano's post #1779 - i would have thought that the police would have mentioned to the former metropolitan police authority, or at least the mayor, that there were a number of longterm undercover operations going on so yer man was not caught out on the hop when / if they were revealed.


No doubt there's a notebook labelled SHITLIST secreted in a lockbox hidden at the back of a safe somewhere in MOPAC HQ with all sorts of such goodies in it!


----------



## Voley (Mar 7, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> So, big Newsnight show on Ellison, Herne 2, the botched Lawrence murder inquiry, SDS and undercover political policing.
> 
> And who is on the roundtable to put forward the police perspective? A big hitter, maybe an ex-Chief Constable, at least a DAC or something?
> 
> ...


Was that actually him? I must admit, with the language toned down and him obviously on his best behavior there were similarities in argument style. 'If you actually look at what the report says'  (translating as 'if you take my very blinkered view of it'). Not an unusual tack for the boys in blue, it's got to be said, but you've intrigued me now Dave.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 7, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> So, big Newsnight show on Ellison, Herne 2, the botched Lawrence murder inquiry, SDS and undercover political policing.
> 
> And who is on the roundtable to put forward the police perspective? A big hitter, maybe an ex-Chief Constable, at least a DAC or something?
> 
> ...



srsly?

i'd not imagined that d-b would have been that high a rank.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 7, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> srsly?
> 
> i'd not imagined that d-b would have been that high a rank.


That was rather the point I was making. He never came close to reaching a chief officer rank. He does, however, have insight into running a major investigation, having been an SIO - but Kirsty Wark didn't ask him any questions relevant to that.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 7, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> That was rather the point I was making. He never came close to reaching a chief officer rank. He does, however, have insight into running a major investigation, having been an SIO - but Kirsty Wark didn't ask him any questions relevant to that.



sorry - think we're at cross porpoises.

yes - agree it was odd that newsnight only got someone of (former) inspector / chief inspector (can't remember which it was) rank out. 

but what i meant was i was surprised that d-b had got as high as that...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 7, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> sorry - think we're at cross porpoises.
> 
> yes - agree it was odd that newsnight only got someone of (former) inspector / chief inspector (can't remember which it was) rank out.
> 
> but what i meant was i was surprised that d-b had got as high as that...


Aha, I see what you mean.

He was a DCI. 

Whilst we may consider him a buffoon from his performances here (or, for example, on Twitter, or propping up the News 24 or Sky News desk), I have no reason to disbelieve that he was a perfectly competent investigator, within the bounds of what was taught, of how he was trained, and of that which he acquired in the course of his career. That said, it is difficult not to see a broad range of character traits in him when he is in full flow which would surely impede any open-minded inquiry.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2014)

Some good news, of sorts - the Met has decided not to apply to have the civil claim of those tricked into intimate relationships with undercover officers struck out:



> *MPS statement re: civil claims in relation to sexual relationships with alleged undercover officers:*
> 
> "In light of the upcoming Public Inquiry into undercover policing, the most recent Operation Herne investigation report and the huge public interest in these issues, the Met has decided it would not be appropriate or proportionate to go ahead with the application to strike out the claims.
> 
> ...



Caution advised - they are doing this to improve (or at worst mitigate) their position.


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Some good news, of sorts - the Met has decided not to apply to have the civil claim of those tricked into intimate relationships with undercover officers struck out:
> 
> Caution advised - they are doing this to improve (or at worst mitigate) their position.



Caution indeed. 

This is damage-limitation in parallel with their application to have the case, and large parts of the inquiry, held in secret.

(Sorry, my most recent reference for this is in today's _Times_, which is in the kitchen at work and not free online.)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2014)

A very good bit of pwnage from Helen Steel:



This document referred to is a transcript of a Metropolitan Police Authority meeting in 2011, in which Hogan-Howe clearly refers to exposed undercover officers as, err, exposed undercover officers - to the point of using Jim Boyling's fake name ‘Sutton’, and referring to the disciplinary processes he was then (and, as far as we are aware, still currently) facing - in a manner which very much confirms and in no way denies that PC Andrew James Boyling was indeed an undercover police officer using the name of ‘Jim Sutton’...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2014)

Some more: Cambridgeshire police tried to turn political activists into informers



> A young antiracism protester abandoned her campaigning work because she felt intimidated by a covert police officer who tried to persuade her to spy on her political colleagues, she has said.
> 
> The 23-year-old said the officer, working for a secretive police unit, had threatened to prosecute her if she told anyone about the attempt to enlist her as a clandestine informer.
> 
> The woman, who is a single mother, said the threat had left her feeling "vulnerable and intimidated", worried that a prosecution would jeopardise her young son, her university place and her chances of working in the future. "If I was charged, I could lose everything," she said.





> A third campaigner said a police officer had also offered him cash for details about the political activities of leftwing students in Cambridge. He said this was the same police officer who was recorded in the secret video published in November trying to coax the young environmental protester into becoming an informer.
> 
> *All four attempts have been made since late 2010* by Cambridgeshire police officers working for the covert unit. The force, which accepts that they tried to recruit the four, refused to name or give any details about the unit, but denied its officers would carry out some of the behaviour alleged by the activists.


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Some more: Cambridgeshire police tried to turn political activists into informers



I know of one more.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, name them.


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, name them.



No fuckoff


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2014)

I meant name the copper. If you know them and the name they'e using, name them.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Some more: Cambridgeshire police tried to turn political activists into informers



d-b offered to lend me money once, many years ago.  i often wondered if i being groomed for this sort of thing. i always assumed he was being nice, because it's pretty obvious that i know fuck all of use to anyone.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 17, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i often wondered if i being groomed


Under the circumstances, you being _quite pretty_ in your _younger days_ and all, that's quite droll


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2014)

The 'police spies out of lives' case is in the courts again today. The police are trying to get the whole thing thrown out on the grounds that they cannot confirm or deny that a particular individual was an undercover cop, even though they have already confirmed that Mark Kennedy was an undercover cop. 'Neither confirm nor deny' is an internal police policy, not a point of law, so I don't understand what bearing it can possibly have on the legitimacy of court proceedings. Imagine a criminal conspiracy demanding that a case against them was dismissed because they'd agreed not to talk about their activities in court 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...dercover-officers-high-court-challenge-police

The court will be back in session any time from now, you can follow it at #spycops


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

It appears to be going pretty rubbish for the Met and its lawyers, with the Judge sounding mighty exasperated - a patchwork of case law, no statutes to greatly depend on, an insistence that a blanket NCND policy is necessary whilst simultaneously defending the many, many individual confirmations by police of individual undercover officers as being completely separate and different and and and...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

Seems that the Met's high-flying legal eagles are now scraping the barrel - just resorted to begging the Judge to maintain NCND because of the need to respect undercover officers' ‘human rights’!


----------



## cesare (Jun 6, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Seems that the Met's high-flying legal eagles are now scraping the barrel - just resorted to begging the Judge to maintain NCND because of the need to respect undercover officers' ‘human rights’!


----------



## ddraig (Jun 6, 2014)

amazingly fuckwitted considering the time they've had to come up with excuses!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

Here's a break down of some of the reasons NCND is a crap excuse for the Met to hide behind:

http://bristle.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/neither-confirm-nor-deny-except-when-it-suits-them/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

There was a great run of tweets from Police Spies Out Of Lives (the women's support group) just before the break for lunch:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

And then:


----------



## cesare (Jun 6, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Here's a break down of some of the reasons NCND is a crap excuse for the Met to hide behind:
> 
> http://bristle.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/neither-confirm-nor-deny-except-when-it-suits-them/


Lots of work putting all that together!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

They're back from lunch, and we've hit the ground running:


----------



## laptop (Jun 6, 2014)

> 2m
> *Police Spies Out* ‏@*out_of_lives*  1m
> If proven, Met would "definitely NOT consider such relationships as justified as an UCO tactic" #*spycops*



"If proven" - does that imply they're going to deny?



> 9m
> *Tom Fowler* ‏@*tombfowler*  9m
> The two plain clothes sat at the back are looking very forlorn, heads in hands #*spycops*



I should think so...


----------



## laptop (Jun 6, 2014)

> 1m
> *Tom Fowler* ‏@*tombfowler*  1m
> Police lawyer asks for an extension of two weeks. By the judges facial expression I don't think they are going to get it #*spycops*


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 6, 2014)

sounds like the judge is rapidly running out of patience with this shambles


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

For posterity:


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 6, 2014)

thanks for the updates. The met in a fucking mess by the looks of it - desperate stalling tactics. Hope the beak tells them to get to fuck.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 6, 2014)

go on Tom!


----------



## ddraig (Jun 6, 2014)

and cheers DaveCinzano


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

All finished now - the Big Wig Fella is reserving judgment...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2014)

'Judgement reserved' is the message coming through here, anyone know what that means exactly? Presumably it just means the judge has failed to rule on the plod's behalf.


----------



## belboid (Jun 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Judgement reserved' is the message coming through here, anyone know what that means exactly? Presumably it just means the judge has failed to rule on the plod's behalf.


it just means he's taking the weekend to think about it


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 6, 2014)

Or longer.

Sounds like a good couple of days for everyone except the cops though.


----------



## laptop (Jun 6, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Or longer.



Can be anything from over the weekend to weeks or, occasionally, several months! 

I'd not expect it to be too long in this case, though. I'm hoping it's just long enough to properly polish the sarcasm


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2014)

Really pathetic stuff from the plod's lawyers, seems like their only excuse for not wanting to answer the charges against them is the desire to protect the anonymity of individuals whose identities are already in the public domain


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

In the highly unlikely event that Tugendhat Bean finds wholly in favour of the arguments of the dead baby identity thieves, I suggest that LMDG, GBC and the rest amend any future editions of their guides to being arrested with the recommendation to answer all questions in police interview not with ‘No comment’ but with the phrase ‘I can neither confirm nor deny’.

_Edited - for some reason I had it in my head that the hearing was before Mr Justice Tugendhat, rather than Mr Justice Bean. Apologies._


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Seems that the Met's high-flying legal eagles are now scraping the barrel - just resorted to begging the Judge to maintain NCND because of the need to respect undercover officers' ‘human rights’!



Hang about, wasn't Mark Kennedy trying to sue the met as well? They can't have been that keen on his human rights either...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 6, 2014)

Press release from the women's lawyers:

*Met police admit for first time in legal case that undercover officers in intimate sexual relationships are not appropriate*


At a High Court Hearing on 6 June 2014, the Met police were finally forced to admit that if the claims brought by eight women, who alleged they were in long term intimate relationships, are true then such relationships would not have been justified as an undercover police tactic.

Mr Justice Bean was hearing an application brought by five of the women requiring the Metropolitan police to drop their “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) stance. NCND has been one of many delaying tactics used by the Met to maintain secrecy over the legal action against them, despite the very serious allegations that have been made by the Claimants.  In dramatic scenes at the court today, the judge would not accept further hedging and obfuscation from leading counsel for the Commissioner.  He demanded that she go away and take instructions from her client.  After a short delay, Ms Carss-Frick, returned and said, “I am able to tell you …that if proved that the Claimants had long term relationships with individuals who were undercover operatives the Defendant would not consider such relationships justified as a UCO tactic”

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the eight women said: “We have been fighting this case for nearly three years and despite everything that is in the public domain, this is the first time the police have been forced to engage in a central issue in the proceedings. This is a very important step on my clients journey towards getting the answers and justice they deserve”

Mr Justice Bean has reserved judgment on the question as to whether the police are required to serve a proper defence rather than rely on NCND and say nothing

*NOTES:*

1. Full background on this hearing is at http://policespiesoutoflives.potager.org/ncnd-5-6-jun/

2. Further background on NCND can be found at:http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/the-case-overview/legal-battles/neither-confirm-nor-deny/


3. Delaying tactics from the police included a strike-out claim on the basis of NCND – which was dropped at the last minute in March of this year. Two large files of evidence were submitted to the Court by the women’s lawyers to counter the strike out claim. These files detailed instances where the police had confirmed the identities of undercover officers; commented on operational tactics of these political policing units; show the identities of the undercover officers reported in the media; and where the women had meticulously compiled evidence demonstrating that they can show the true identities of the officers.

4. This hearing concerns five of the eight women; the other three women are also bringing claims under the Human Rights Act, including suffering “inhumane and degrading treatment” and disruption of their “private and family life, including the right to form relationships without unjustified interference by the state”. They are fighting a separate battle to stop their claims being sent to a secret court, the IPT.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2014)

Be interesting to see how this pans out:

Gary Shopland wants W Yorks police to acknowledge that he was their informer in the BNP - because without that acknowledgement he's branded a racist.

W Yorks respond "NCND".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/23/bnp-infiltrator-police-covert-spy


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 23, 2014)

laptop said:


> W Yorks respond "NCND".



Bit rich seeing as ACPO (through its then lead on scientific issues, Cambs Ch Cons ‘Ben’ Gunn) put forward its own far right tout Peter Marriner (infiltrator of the BM, NF, C88 etc) - an informant who had already been blown wide open through his wheedling into Labour Party circles - to appear on Peter Taylor's _True Spies_ with only the thinnest of disguises back in 2002...

Presumably the reason was to piss off the Security Service (for whom Marriner also spied, along with Searchlight), this being in the period where MPSB and the other Branches were in a bitter turf war with MI5 over who got to spy on political activists. Of course, this was when ACPO hit on the magic recipe of ‘domestic extremism’ whilst simultaneously reaping the dual benefits of a statutory footing (thanks to the Police Reform Bill) and the protections that come with being a private limited liability company.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 23, 2014)

ACPO is a limited liability company? How the fuck does that work?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 23, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> ACPO is a limited liability company? How the fuck does that work?


How do you think it would work? (Clue: not for the benefit of wider society, principles of accountability or the open and fair expression of democratic values.)

ACPO will (finally) be replaced soon anyway:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4112802.ece (£)
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Staff Associations/2014/Jun/18/ACPO-President-Organisation-faces-crunch-debate_83693.html (reg)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 25, 2014)

Mr Justice Bean is expected to hand down his ruling on NCND this Friday at some time after 10am, it seems.

http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/awaiting-ncnd-jdg/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Mr Justice Bean is expected to hand down his ruling on NCND this Friday at some time after 10am, it seems.
> 
> http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/awaiting-ncnd-jdg/



He's took his fucking time hasn't he? Three weeks and change?


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's took his fucking time hasn't he? Three weeks and change?



I shall expect, at the very least, some *seriously* polished sarcasm.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> I shall expect, at the very least, some *seriously* polished sarcasm.



Yeah, hopefully it'll be worth the wait


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 25, 2014)

is there any chance that there will anything meaningful to come out of this?  i don't want to get my hopes up.


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> is there any chance that there will anything meaningful to come out of this?  i don't want to get my hopes up.



It'll be a fucking scandal if he lets the Met get away with that "we can't enter a defence because we won't tell you if the people concerned were working for us so you have to let us off" line.

I have a sudden fear that the answer will be some kind of (partially) closed/secret process.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's took his fucking time hasn't he? Three weeks and change?


Perhaps the weather's been different where you live


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

I live in an inner city. Hot weather just makes everything worse here.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> It'll be a fucking scandal if he lets the Met get away with that "we can't enter a defence because we won't tell you if the people concerned were working for us so you have to let us off" line.



Certainly those who were there over the two days have expressed how exasperated the judge appeared to be with the heel-dragging, time-wasting and general dog-ate-my-homework, sir-sir-didn't-know-we-had-to-decline-fifth-declension-nouns-for-this-lesson-honest-sir behaviour of the Met's paradoxically expensive and yet so seemingly unprepared lawyers. Based on that, plus (i) the strong case put forward by the women's lawyers, who noted in detail the entirely inconsistent history of the NCND claim (both generally and specifically in terms of the spy cops); (ii) the thin case law and legislative support put forward by the Met's lawyers; and (iii) the frantic ‘Phone A Friend’ moment when a Met lawyer had to leave the court room on the judge's instruction to call her client to find out whether they considered undercover cops having sex with targets acceptable or not; it would certainly weigh more in the women's favour than the police's.

But who knows what possible environmental effects the extended hot spell may have had on Justice Bean's brain in the meantime.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 25, 2014)

PS

Ever wondered why it is Mark Jenner and John Dines in particular which the Met is so keen to avoid having to acknowledge? Or whether other actors beyond NSY might have had a say in plod's intransigence on the matter?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2014)

Police Spies Out Of Lives is saying the NCND ruling has been postponed until next Wednesday, 2 July, probably 9.30am or after.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 26, 2014)

fucks sake


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I live in an inner city. Hot weather just makes everything worse here.


no it doesn't






a long hot summer relatively recently


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2014)

Meanwhile, Theresa May has agreed the terms of reference with Mark Ellison QC (who undertook the damning Stephen Lawrence Independent Review) and the CPS (which released the laughably superficial Rose Report into Operation Aeroscope/Ratcliffe raid & trials, and whose boss Keir Starmer made the claim that there would be no need to initiate a full scale review of cases of people convicted on spy cop evidence or in related activity) for Ellison to, erm, *lead a full review investigating potential miscarriages of justice*...

Ellison will:


> co-ordinate a multi-agency review, reporting to the Attorney General, to assess the possible impact upon the safety of convictions in England and Wales where relevant undercover police activity was not properly revealed to the prosecutor and considered at the time of trial. Nothing in these terms of reference affects the statutory responsibilities of the various agencies and office-holders working with the review.
> 
> The review will initially focus on the undercover police activity of the MPS’s Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) which, whilst not an MPS resource, worked to similar objectives. The review will then assess whether its scope may need to be broadened to cover other undercover police activity...



https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/review-of-potential-miscarriages-of-justice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Meanwhile, Theresa May has agreed the terms of reference with Mark Ellison QC (who undertook the damning Stephen Lawrence Independent Review) and the CPS (which released the laughably superficial Rose Report into Operation Aeroscope/Ratcliffe raid & trials, and whose boss Keir Starmer made the claim that there would be no need to initiate a full scale review of cases of people convicted on spy cop evidence or in related activity) for Ellison to, erm, *lead a full review investigating potential miscarriages of justice*...
> 
> Ellison will:
> 
> ...


nice picture of her on that link






she looks halfway human there.

as opposed to 100% vampire.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 26, 2014)

Potential miscarriages of justice? Off the top of my head over forty convictions have now been declared unsafe and overturned just because of the actions of one undercover officer. There's no 'potential' about it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 26, 2014)

I hope Kennedy is enjoying sitting in exile somewhere, fucked off by his wife and kids, too shit scared to return home, and watching everything he 'achieved' during his seven years undercover unravel before his eyes. 

I hope he reads this thread too.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I hope Kennedy is enjoying sitting in exile somewhere, fucked off by his wife and kids, too shit scared to return home, and watching everything he 'achieved' during his seven years undercover unravel before his eyes.
> 
> I hope he reads this thread too.


According to his testimony to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Kennedy is legally separated from his wife. However, he lied about a number of things in the evidence he gave there, so taking his word as gospel without corroboration might be unwise.

That aside, this issue is far more wide-ranging than the narrative of a few ‘rotten apples’, ‘renegade officers’, ‘cops going native’ or whatever else - the abuses were endemic to the system of infiltration.

The tactics and strategies were refined, expanded, and passed down as undercover officers themselves became spy cop managers (such as Lambert, Pearce and others); their work was in turn supported by and funded through unaccountable back channels (at the Home Office, through Special Branch, via ACPO and by way of private industry), all at the instigation of politicians; and those running the spy operations were protected by officers who are now very senior not just at the Met but also at other constabularies and police forces, and in related agencies.


----------



## co-op (Jun 26, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> That aside, this issue is far more wide-ranging than the narrative of a few ‘rotten apples’, ‘renegade officers’, ‘cops going native’ or whatever else - the abuses were endemic to the system of infiltration.



Yep. I'd guess that a lot of the individual cops concerned end up with pretty fucked up lives. I'm not inviting a ton of sympathy for them here, just pointing out that this kind of operation must have been systemic and the individual relatively low-level cops used on the ground have been used up and chucked away by the higher-ups without a great deal of concern for their long term well-being. 

Some of the police involved in overseeing this kind of thing get pretty rewarding promotions and big rewards, people like Kennedy end up in exile as small-time grifters on the edge of the security industry.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 26, 2014)

Fucking love you Gumbo.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

BOOM:


----------



## ddraig (Jul 2, 2014)

hurrah!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

There should be a statement from the women soon. In the meantime, they've posted up this primer on NCND:

*Why NCND must be rejected….*
By admin | Published: July 2, 2014
Ahead of today’s judgment over police obstructions to this case, here’s some background reading on why “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” must be rejected as an obstruction to justice……

(NCND = Neither Confirm Nor Deny – see here for an explanation)


Critique of NCND by Alison, one of the women in the case – see HERE
Legal arguments made by the womens’ lawyers – see HERE
Seven (well-referenced) reasons _“why NCND is bullshit!”_ – see HERE
The women’s case began in December 2011, but the police didn’t mention NCND in relation to the case until June 2012 – see HERE
Undercover officers contributed to the BBC’s “True Spies” programme as long ago as 2002, with the blessing of the Met – see HERE
The most senior police officers in the country have already confirmed the identity of undercover officers – see HERE
Mick Creedon, who leads Operation Herne, has testified about the activities of undercover officer Peter Francis to the Home Affairs Select Committee – see HERE
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary have stated that it is appropriate to waive NCND in the case of Mark Kennedy – see HERE (page 4)
Several ex-undercover officers have identified themselves as such – see HERE and HERE and HERE.
Neither Confirm Nor Deny = NEITHER TRUTH NOR JUSTICE. We will keep fighting for truth and justice for the women who’s lives were abused by undercover units, and extend our solidarity to all those affected by intrusive, abusive undercover policing.​


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

Women's statement now up:

http://policespiesoutoflives.potage...s-of-intimate-relationships-while-undercover/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

The small print:



> However, he then disappointingly held that as there had been no official confirmation, “the Commissioner should not be required to admit or deny whether either of them is an undercover officer or has the real name alleged”. He went on to say “This may only postpone the day of reckoning, in the sense that if the case proceeds and no evidence is adduced to challenge that put forward by RAB and Helen Steel respectively, it appears likely that the respective factual cases put forward by them will be accepted”.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

So, a pretty strong result, and despite the _issues referred to above_, Mr Justice Bean ultimately was not struck down with full-blown sunstroke; and it would appear that Jenner and Dines and their former employers, and perhaps most interesting of all, their _subsequent employers_, are not off the hook entirely.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

Here's Mr Justice Bean's _What I Did In The Summer Holidays_:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2184.html


----------



## laptop (Jul 2, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Here's Mr Justice Bean's _What I Did In The Summer Holidays_:
> 
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2184.html



Oh, yes. The sarcasm isn't bad:




			
				Mr Justice Bean said:
			
		

> (Ms Carss-Frisk mentioned a possible argument that one should never say never: it might be legitimate for an officer to sleep with someone on a single occasion in order to obtain information about an imminent terrorist act. That is so far from the present facts that I will leave discussion of it to a case in which it arises, if it ever does.)
> 
> ...
> The defence then goes on to deal with (or, it might be said, not deal with) the individual cases.
> ...



That's several judge-speak translations of "for fuck's sake" for the file.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2014)

The third Op Herne report - about spying on family & justice campaigns - was released by the Met and Derbyshire Constabulary this lunchtime:

http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application/pdf&blobheadervalue2=inline; filename="99/962/Operation Herne - July 2014 - SDS Reporting - Mentions of Sensitive Campaigns [PUBLIC].pdf"&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1283768671607&ssbinary=true
http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Doc...porting---Mentions-of-Sensitive-Campaigns.pdf

It's a corker - in that Creedon admits that 17 (or 18 - he's ambiguous) family/justice campaigns were spied on by SDS between 1970 and 2005. The only one which is mentioned by name is the Lawrence family, because that was detailed in the previous Herne report, which coincided with the explosive Ellison Review.

Creedon has said that the families have been contacted but that he won't say which families/campaigns were spied on, you know, ‘out of respect for privacy, etc’. The _Guardian_ has already identified the families of Ricky Reel, Cherry Groce and Jean Charles De Menezes as having been approached.

So let's build up some lists:

*Definites*


Cherry Groce (1985)
Stephen Lawrence (1993)
Ricky Reel (1997)

Jean Charles De Menezes (2005)
*Possibles*


Kevin Gately (1974)
Blair Peach (1979)
Colin Roach (1983)

Cynthia Jarrett (1985)
Patrick Quinn (1990)

Rolan Adams (1991)

Quddus Ali (1993)
Brian Douglas (1995)

Wayne Douglas (1995)

Harry Stanley (1999)
Azelle Rodney (2005)


----------



## ddraig (Jul 24, 2014)

but but the families weren't "under surveillance" just that "inappropriate information about them was gathered"


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> *Possibles*
> 
> 
> Kevin Gately (1974)
> ...




Tunay Hassan (1987)
Michael Ferreira (1978)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> David Emmanuel (2011).



Needs to be 1970-2005 to match the timeframe put forward by Creedon (also SDS was wound up in 2008; the similar NPOIU was in place from 1999 and operating nationally until 2010 merger that bundled it into NDEU along with NETCU & NDET, before NDEU was brought into Met structure in 2011, redesignated NDEDIU and its undercover unit hived off).

Started a new thread for this here:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-policing-spying-on-justice-campaigns.325958/


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Needs to be 1970-2005 to match the timeframe put forward by Creedon (also SDS was wound up in 2008; the similar NPOIU was in place from 1999 and operating nationally until 2008/9 merger that bundled it into NDEU along with NETCU & NDET, before NDEU was brought into Met structure, redesignated NDEDIU and undercover unit hived off).
> 
> Started a new thread for this here:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/latest-operation-herne-report-3-into-undercover-policing-spying-on-justice-campaigns.325958/



Yeah I just edited that out. The other two still stand.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 24, 2014)

The Met regrets getting caught out like this "Enormously".

ffs just goes to show the contempt they hold us all in. When their behavior leads to a death, rather than do what they can to ensure it doesn't happen again it's always cover-up, smear, lie and now it seems snoop on the victim's families. Cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Met regrets getting caught out like this "Enormously".
> 
> ffs just goes to show the contempt they hold us all in. When their behavior leads to a death, rather than do what they can to ensure it doesn't happen again it's always cover-up, smear, lie and now it seems snoop on the victim's families. Cunts.



Of course they regret getting caught, they don't actually regret their despicable behaviour


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2014)

Nice Freudian slip from Creedon here:



> Asked if he was certain no spying took place, he said: "It would have been completely against what the SDS was there for - it was there to try and stop protest and try and make sure the capital was a safer place to live in."



Surely he meant _facillitate _protest?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nice Freudian slip from Creedon here:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely he meant _facillitate _protest?



Nope, the SDS was there to stop protest.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 25, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nope, the SDS was there to stop protest.



Well yeah that's pretty obvious, but how come they can say as much in public as if that's an OK thing for the police to be doing?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well yeah that's pretty obvious, but how come they can say as much in public as if that's an OK thing for the police to be doing?



I know! Guess when you've fessed up to spying on the Lawrences admitting the filth are there to stop dissent is small beans.

Don't like this world very much anymore.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 29, 2014)

The BBC's Danny Shaw is reporting that the Met “agrees to reveal whether two men [PC Andrew James Boyling AKA ‘Jim Sutton’ and Insp Robert Lambert AKA ‘Bob Robinson’] did or did not have relationships with women while working as undercover police officers.”

Bit of a no-brainer seeing as Lambert sired a son and Boyling married an activist he had been targeting. Clearly the Met's legal eagles fancy themselves as a right bunch of Cnuts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The third Op Herne report - about spying on family & justice campaigns - was released by the Met and Derbyshire Constabulary this lunchtime:
> 
> http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application/pdf&blobheadervalue2=inline; filename="99/962/Operation Herne - July 2014 - SDS Reporting - Mentions of Sensitive Campaigns [PUBLIC].pdf"&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1283768671607&ssbinary=true
> http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Doc...porting---Mentions-of-Sensitive-Campaigns.pdf
> ...


wouldn't be surprised if there'd been police involvement with the diarmuid o'neill campaign. or joy gardner for that matter.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2014)

Danny Shaw tonight reporting that the Met has finally acknowledged that Bob Lambert and Jim Boyling were spycops who had sexual relationships with female targets.

Their line of defence on this - don't laugh - is that the relationships were... ‘Based on “mutual attraction & genuine personal feelings”’!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2014)

A pretty transparent holding action, really, seeing as there's what one might call something of a significant paper trail and forensic evidence linking both of them to the false identities Bob Robinson and Jim Sutton.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2014)

Fuller report in _Graun_:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...forced-to-name-undercover-officers?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 15, 2014)

Will they still not even confirm Mark Kennedy was an undercover plod, despite the fact he's admitted as much himself?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Will they still not even confirm Mark Kennedy was an undercover plod, despite the fact he's admitted as much himself?


Lambert and Boyling were SDS (Metropolitan Police Special Branch), whereas Kennedy was seconded to NPOIU, a national unit set up through ACPO and later directed through NCDE. Kennedy has been avowed in numerous reports (eg HMIC, Operation Herne).

The ‘admission’ that Lambert and Boyling were undercover police officers is something of a rearguard holding action by the Met for the following reasons:


Lambert and Boyling both had children with targets
Lambert's post-SDS career (MCU, then academia) gave him a relatively high profile, and one in which his Special Branch days were acknowledged (if not the specifics)
Boyling married the target with whom he had children
Boyling was acknowledged to be facing disciplinary charges in relation to his conduct as an undercover officer

In both cases there is too much demonstrable evidence to show that ‘Robinson’ was Lambert, and that ‘Sutton’ was Boyling. Furthermore ‘Robinson’ and ‘Sutton’ have each been shown to be an undercover police officer by an overwhelming volume of circumstantial evidence, not limited to: the Debenham's ALF incendiary plot sting; the LU office occupation prosecution; Lambert's self-released post-exposure statement; Lambert's Channel 4 News interview with Andy Davies; Lambert's evidence to Mark Ellison QC; contextual comparison of Operation Herne reports 1, 2 & 3, and the Ellison Review; hearsay evidence from Boyling's (now former) wife; Lambert's 2014 article for _Critical Studies on Terrorism_; Boyling's disciplinary proceedings; Commissioner Hogan-Howe (who in his previous job at HMIC had even penned the original report into undercover policing units) naming Boyling as a Met officer at the time of his arrest under the ‘Sutton’ identity to the Metropolitan Police Authority; and so on.

Finally, Lambert was Boyling's senior and mentor in SDS. He was also known to be a visitor to the home of Boyling and his target-wife. Lambert and Boyling were then founder members of the Muslim Contact Unit. If one had to be acknowledged, then so did the other.

One may reasonably speculate that acknowledging both Lambert and Boyling were undercover police officers is a pragmatic and expedient tactic by the Met, designed to build something of a firewall around those officers it is unwilling to name as infiltrators - namely John Dines (‘Barker’) and Mark Jenner (‘Cassidy’).

To understand why Lambert and Boyling can be sacrificed, but why also Dines and Jenner must be protected, you must consider:


The individuals, groups, movements and politics which Dines and Jenner targeted
The possible criminal offences they may have committed whilst undercover, the issue of command and control at the time, and any ongoing legal liability this may expose the Met to
The organisation(s) to which these two highly-trained and experienced undercover operatives may have taken their rather unusual skillsets to, having left SDS/Special Branch.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2014)

To add to the above, official sources have already released information confirming specific individuals infiltrated into political movements as having been undercover police officers - specific individuals about whom there is considerably less conclusive evidence, it should be noted, than, for example, Jenner and Dines. 

Again, this would appear to indicate that there is something special about Jenner and/or Dines.

Now, even in an organisation such as the Met there will be sane minds who understand the ridiculousness of all the foot-dragging. So it may be not unreasonable to infer that the impetus for this foot-dragging is not entirely of the Met's own making, but carried out at the direction of another organisation, for reasons beyond those of embarrassment to a police force or the potential for legal liabilities for the actions of specific police officers during their undercover tours of duty within particular political groups.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> To add to the above, official sources have already released information confirming specific individuals infiltrated into political movements as having been undercover police officers - specific individuals about whom there is considerably less conclusive evidence, it should be noted, than, for example, Jenner and Dines.
> 
> Again, this would appear to indicate that there is something special about Jenner and/or Dines.
> 
> Now, even in an organisation such as the Met there will be sane minds who understand the ridiculousness of all the foot-dragging. So it may be not unreasonable to infer that the impetus for this foot-dragging is not entirely of the Met's own making, but carried out at the direction of another organisation, for reasons beyond those of embarrassment to a police force or the potential for legal liabilities for the actions of specific police officers during their undercover tours of duty within particular political groups.


i wouldn't be surprised if the met's lawyers were acting on a no-win no-fee arrangement


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i wouldn't be surprised if the met's lawyers were acting on a no-win no-fee arrangement


If they were you'd think they'd be a bit better at this then


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> If they were you'd think they'd be a bit better at this then


it what the police in the fairford case did, after at least 2006, and we all know how long that took to finish.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 18, 2014)

In case you hadn't seen it, here's the _New Yorker_ piece which came out today. 

You may be familiar with the basic elements of the story, but this is the first time some of the background details have been publicly aired. And some of them are gruesome.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/the-spy-who-loved-me-2

It tells the story of Jacqui (previously referred to as ‘Charlotte’), the woman who once upon a time fell in love with a dashing animal rights activist named ‘Bob Robinson’.

In reality, ‘Robinson’ was Robert Lambert, a career-long veteran of Special Branch, who in 1983 was sent deep undercover to infiltrate political groups on behalf of the secretive Special Demonstration Squad.

Almost immediately after being deployed on the ground, complete with the stolen identity of a dead child, Lambert sought out Jacqui at a protest, and began to woo her - which helped ease his way into animal rights groups that she was on the periphery of. Pretty soon they were an item, and by Christmas of 1984 Jacqui fell pregnant with Bob's son.

But in 1987 the relationship fell apart, as Bob became increasingly distant, argumentative, provocative. He began an 18 month relationship with another woman, ‘Karen’, who not part of any activist scene. In 1988, he disappeared completely from the lives of Jacqui, ‘Karen’ and all the people he had befriended during his adventure as a spy - ostensibly on the run in Spain to avoid the clutches of Special Branch, who had already arrested two other members of Bob's ALF incendiary bomb gang. 

Between 1988 and late 2012, he made no attempt to remain in the life of his son. It was only when Jacqui realised that her long-disappeared ‘Bob Robinson’ was the same man as the former secret policeman Bob Lambert who had been accused of having set off a firebomb that gutted a department store whilst an undercover policeman, and tracked him down, that he showed any interest in his own progeny.

And that, in a nutshell, is the “genuine personal feelings” that the Met Police, recently forced to admit that Lambert was one of its spies, thinks drove Lambert to seek out an impressionable young activist, pester her into a relationship, impregnate her, emotionally bully her, dump her and then disappear from her life and the life of their son.

[Cross-posted]


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

So the CPS has decided there will be no charges for the undercover officers who had _relationships _with various women whilst undercover.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So the CPS has decided there will be no charges for the undercover officers who had _relationships _with various women whilst undercover.


the state protects its own


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

Their statement:



> The CPS received a file in relation to a number of police officers under Operation Aubusson, a subset of Operation Herne, which is an investigation into the activities of the Metropolitan Police Service’s Special Demonstration Squad. The evidence in this case relates to alleged sexual misconduct. In reviewing the case we have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to allow charges of rape, indecent assault, procuring a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretences, misconduct in public office and breaches of the Official Secrets Act.
> 
> Having carefully considered all the available evidence, provided at the end of a thorough investigation, we have determined that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for any offences against any of the officers. Investigators from Operation Aubusson have confirmed that no further lines of enquiry are available at this time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Their statement:


i'd have thought that misconduct in a public office would have done, if there'd been any backbone in the cps for such a prosecution.

not to say rape as consent obtained by deception can't (imo) be really considered consent. would any of these women have agreed to a intercourse knowing their partner was a police officer? the evidence suggests not.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 21, 2014)

As the judge said to us in the dock;
''It is the duty of the court to protect police officers whilst upholding the law of the land.''
We were under the belief that the truth would set us free. Ah well every day is a school day.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought that misconduct in a public office would have done, if there'd been any backbone in the cps for such a prosecution.
> 
> not to say rape as consent obtained by deception can't (imo) be really considered consent.


That option is still there - but i expect will never be exercised. This was i believe strictly concerning "case relates to alleged sexual misconduct".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> As the judge said to us in the dock;
> ''It is the duty of the court to protect police officers whilst upholding the law of the land.''
> We were under the belief that the truth would set us free. Ah well every day is a school day.


daydream believer


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That option is still there - but i expect will never be exercised. This was i believe strictly concerning "case relates to alleged sexual misconduct".


i'd say living a lie and obtaining a sexual relationship as a central part of that lie is sexual misconduct.

but sadly not a lawyer


----------



## laptop (Aug 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the state protects its own



OTOH, the civil action hinges "on the balance of probabilities"...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2014)

No doubt an entirely appropriate decision in which the available evidence was weighed up and considered soberly.

In situations like these it's probably very useful to have as Chief Inspector at HM CPS Inspectorate, which operates as an internal watchdog for the CPS,  a man of the calibre of ex-Kent Police Chief Constable Michael Fuller. The Chief Inspector, as well as leading HMCPSI, also chairs the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group, where he ensures that “[the CPS] commitment to participating in cross-cutting joint inspections, including the treatment of young victims and witnesses and aspects of restorative justice” is maintained. So that's alright, then!

Certainly Fuller's rather underdocumented police career - modest bashfulness, one supposes - predisposes him to a fair amount of insight into the issue of long-term deployment of undercover  officers into political groups, seeing as he himself spent not a few years in Special Branch, racked up several years' of undercover work himself, and was closely connected to the teflon cop-spook himself, John Grieve, with whom he established CO24.

And let us not underestimate his understanding, not just of the context and generalities of CHIS, but also the specifics: from 2002 until he left the Met (that is, a period in which ‘Rod Richardson’, Mark Kennedy, ‘Lynn Watson’, ‘Jason Bishop’, ‘Simon Welling’ and others were all active) he was its Director of Intelligence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2014)

A couple of things to consider with this charging statement:

It specifically relates to SDS officers who had sexual relationships with women whilst undercover - such as the recently ‘acknowledged’ Bob Lambert and Jim Boyling, who each had children by targeted women. Lambert & Boyling both continued their Special Branch careers after their SDS deployments ended, and together founded the Muslim Contact Unit. Other SDS officers - though as yet unconfirmed by the Met, as though that matters - John Dines and Mark Jenner, both of whom went on to _interesting_ new jobs. Then there is the whistleblower Peter Francis; onetime SDS chief Mike Ferguson; possibly former Special Branch bigwig Roger Pearce; ‘Officer 11’; Mike Chitty; and others.

As such the cases involving Mark Kennedy, ‘Lynn Watson’ and ‘Marco Jacobs’, who all slept with targets whilst on the job for NPOIU rather than SDS, are not involved.

Also, note this is a CPS charging decision, and will not affect the case(s) being brought by the targeted women (and one man).


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Aug 21, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> In situations like these it's probably very useful to have as Chief Inspector at HM CPS Inspectorate, which operates as an internal watchdog for the CPS,  a man of the calibre of ex-Kent Police Chief Constable Michael Fuller.


Without wanting to bore anyone too much about the mechanics of the Civil Service, HMCPSI doesn't have any influence over the CPS's charging decisions or the conduct of prosecutions. It looks at broad issues, like how the CPS handles disclosure, advocacy quality, etc, and occasionally examines why a particular prosecution has crashed and burned.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2014)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Without wanting to bore anyone too much about the mechanics of the Civil Service, HMCPSI doesn't have any influence over the CPS's charging decisions or the conduct of prosecutions.


No one suggested it did.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 21, 2014)

I think the met think that "genuine sexual attraction" is a form of apology. Those words make me wanna spew everywhere.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 21, 2014)

i wonder what else the met can excuse from their list of crimes because of genuine sexual attraction?


----------



## ShakespearO (Aug 22, 2014)

IIRC, the protest groups travelled to other European countries. 

From the Assange / Sweden matter, we know that different countries define rape in different ways.

If the undercover cops shaggged their duped "girlfriends" in other countries, would there  be grounds for bringing a rape / indecent assault complaint in a country where the authorities are less disposed than the UK CPS to covering up for plod?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 22, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> IIRC, the protest groups travelled to other European countries.
> 
> From the Assange / Sweden matter, we know that different countries define rape in different ways.
> 
> If the undercover cops shaggged their duped "girlfriends" in other countries, would there  be grounds for bringing a rape / indecent assault complaint in a country where the authorities are less disposed than the UK CPS to covering up for plod?


The mechanics of that would no doubt be difficult, and further complicated by the various (secret) multi- and bilateral agreements in place between various countries and the UK facilitating the sharing of the work product of the spycops - both British and non-British.

See:

http://www.statewatch.org/subscriber/protected/sw21n2.pdf (pp4-13)
http://euro-police.noblogs.org/2011/02/cross-border-spying-on-euro-anarchists/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/837/837we04.htm
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-78602546.html
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-76397376.html

In practice, such agreements have included exchange programmes for spycops, so it's not a one-way street - five from the Berlin State Police _alone_ were working in the UK for the 2005 Gleneagles G8 summit. Typically Country A's spycop working in Country B will share work product with the host country's police/intelligence agency, which will ‘sanitise’ any intelligence as having come from a common or garden informer, ie not a professional police officer.

In addition host countries have assisted visiting spycops in the building up of ‘activist credibility’, including by way of the commission of serious crimes - and then ensuring there are no serious consequences. This has meant keeping the prosecuting authorities in the dark, and allowing spycops to be processed under their false identities.

So you can imagine there may be as much or even less appetite for airing British spycop laundry in these other countries, given that most of them had reciprocal arrangements - and most of the other countries' spycop programmes have not yet been exposed.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 24, 2015)

Case starts tomorrow in London

Demo in Cardiff tonight at 6pm and tomorrow outside court in London
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/police-being-sued-over-alleged-8905129





https://southwalesanarchists.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/solidarity-against-spycops/


> It has been over five years since we learned that Mark “Marco” Jacobs was not just another anarchist in the south Wales activist scene, but was actually an undercover police officer. We made all the relevant political points about the matter in our statement at the time: “_They come at us because we are strong_”
> 
> Since then a number of activists are taking legal action against South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police in an attempt to hold the system to account.
> 
> ...


----------



## likesfish (Mar 24, 2015)

A bunch of muppets behaving like cunts.
 Which might be justifiable if they were saving the world as we know it 24 hour style.

But the terrifying terrorists acts of terror involved being annoying and irritating
 Irritatorists or annoyinists dont need 7 years of undercover  work.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 24, 2015)

impressive turnout at demo earlier
#spycops


----------



## ddraig (Mar 24, 2015)

https://twitter.com/hashtag/spycops?f=realtime&src=hash


----------



## ddraig (Mar 26, 2015)

http://undercoverresearch.net/2015/03/26/558/

*Breakthrough ruling: #spycops defence down the drain!*
Posted on March 26, 2015 by admin


A breakthrough ruling in the Marco Jacobs case: The police will not contest that Jacobs was an undercover officer, nor require the claimants to prove he was. If the claimants are awarded damages then the Met, South Wales Police & the Association of Chief Police Officers will be liable.

The ruling was made on 25 March 2015 in the High Court case of Welsh activists who were spied on by Jacobs to get the Met’s obstructive *‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’* tactic struck out. Here’s* the full order* from the *#spycops* hearing (stretching the English language to it’s limits, as @tombfowler said). Text agreed by both sides.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2015)

Taxpayers pays for their scum-games then.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2015)

Compensation for victims of police misconduct should come straight out of the relevant force's pension fund. 

Ditto legal costs for both sides.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 26, 2015)

Would that it were so. I am getting more than a little sick seeing them spend our money attempting to defend the indefensible.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 26, 2015)

do people see this development as a step forward?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2015)

ddraig said:


> do people see this development as a step forward?



There was a simillar decision last year in the case of the women who had had relationships with undercover filth. 



> Today, in a devastating blow to the Metropolitan Police’s attempts to cover up gross abuses of women by undercover police, the High Court ruled that the Met could not use ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ as a blanket response to all the fully pleaded claims of women affected.
> 
> Mr Justice Bean handed down judgment in the pre-trial hearing concerning five of the women who were deceived into long term intimate relationships with undercover policemen who were infiltrating environmental and social justice campaigns.
> 
> He held that there was no legitimate public interest in the Met Police asserting NCND in respect of the general allegations that undercover officers had engaged in long term intimate sexual relationships with those whose activities the MPS were monitoring; and that this was authorised or acquiesced in by senior management.



http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk...s-of-intimate-relationships-while-undercover/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2015)

Some of the arguments the police lawyers came out with in that case were hilariously absurd. Basically it was numerous variation on the theme of, 'we shouldn't have to reveal any information because any information we reveal will make us look really bad.'


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...f-undercover-spy-sues-corporate-security-firm

oops


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2015)

two sheds said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...f-undercover-spy-sues-corporate-security-firm
> 
> oops


It's worth pointing out that the boss of Global Open, Rod Leeming, had previously been the boss of the pre-NPOIU 'Animal Rights National Index', a spy unit under the purview of Metropolitan Police Special Branch set up in the mid-80s around the efforts of an Essex Constabulary intelligence collator.

It is _not unreasonable_ to _imagine_ that Leeming and his Global Open chums (and those who have contracted specialist services from them) have spent the past few years preparing for this particular shitstorm, both in a personal and a business sense; it will be _interesting_ to see how much paperwork and electronic files have survived such preparations.


----------



## nogojones (Sep 8, 2015)

How come the CPS pressed this one whilst Kennedy and his croneys ain't been charged?

Woman tricked friend into having sex by pretending to be a man, court hears

Although the circumstances are a bit different the principle remains


----------



## Chilli.s (Sep 8, 2015)

nogojones said:


> How come the CPS pressed this one whilst Kennedy and his croneys ain't been charged?
> 
> Woman tricked friend into having sex by pretending to be a man, court hears
> 
> Although the circumstances are a bit different the principle remains



Many similarities in that deception. The charges of sexual assault should also have been made against Kennedy. But the law is not justice, it's just part of the system.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 20, 2015)

On my phone  so can't link, but guardian reporting a Met apology with an out of court settlement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> On my phone  so can't link, but guardian reporting a Met apology with an out of court settlement.


Police apologise to women who had relationships with undercover officers


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 20, 2015)

I believe there will be a statement put out today by COPS and/or PSOOL:

http://campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/

Police Spies Out of Lives | Support group for women's legal action against undercover policing


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 20, 2015)

Met statement:

*Claimants in civil cases receive MPS apology*
*News  •  Nov 20, 2015 10:00 GMT *
*The Metropolitan Police Service and seven women have now concluded a mediation process in relation to claims arising from long term intimate sexual relationships. *

As part of the settlement, the details of which are confidential, the MPS agreed to publish the full apology that has been given personally to those seven women.
The following is attributable to *Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt:*

“The Metropolitan Police has recently settled seven claims arising out of the totally unacceptable behaviour of a number of undercover police officers working for the now disbanded Special Demonstration Squad, an undercover unit within Special Branch that existed until 2008 and for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) an undercover unit which was operational until 2011.

"Thanks in large part to the courage and tenacity of these women in bringing these matters to light it has become apparent that some officers, acting undercover whilst seeking to infiltrate protest groups, entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong.

"I acknowledge that these relationships were a violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma. I unreservedly apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. I am aware that money alone cannot compensate the loss of time, their hurt or the feelings of abuse caused by these relationships.

"This settlement follows a mediation process in which I heard directly from the women concerned.
"I wish to make a number of matters absolutely clear.

"Most importantly, relationships like these should never have happened. They were wrong and were a gross violation of personal dignity and integrity.

"Let me add these points:

"Firstly, none of the women with whom the undercover officers had a relationship brought it on themselves. They were deceived pure and simple. I want to make it clear that the Metropolitan Police does not suggest that any of these women could be in any way criticized for the way in which these relationships developed.

"Second, at the mediation process the women spoke of the way in which their privacy had been violated by these relationships. I entirely agree that it was a gross violation and also accept that it may well have reflected attitudes towards women that should have no part in the culture of the Metropolitan Police.

"Third, it is apparent that some officers may have preyed on the women’s good nature and had manipulated their emotions to a gratuitous extent. This was distressing to hear about and must have been very hard to bear.

"Fourth, I recognise that these relationships, the subsequent trauma and the secrecy around them left these women at risk of further abuse and deception by these officers after the deployment had ended.

"Fifth, I recognize that these legal proceedings have been painful distressing and intrusive and added to the damage and distress. Let me make clear that whether or not genuine feelings were involved on the part of any officers is entirely irrelevant and does not make the conduct acceptable.

"One of the concerns which the women strongly expressed was that they wished to ensure that such relationships would not happen in future. They referred to the risks that children could be conceived through and into such relationships and I understand that.

"These matters are already the subject of several investigations including a criminal and misconduct enquiry called Operation Herne; undercover policing is also now subject to a judge-led Public Inquiry which commenced on 28th July 2015. Even before those bodies report, I can state that sexual relationships between undercover police officers and members of the public should not happen. The forming of a sexual relationship by an undercover officer would never be authorized in advance nor indeed used as a tactic of a deployment. If an officer did have a sexual relationship despite this (for example if it was a matter of life or death) then he would be required to report this in order that the circumstances could be investigated for potential criminality and/or misconduct. I can say as a very senior officer of the Metropolitan Police Service that I and the Metropolitan Police are committed to ensuring that this policy is followed by every officer who is deployed in an undercover role.

"Finally, the Metropolitan Police recognises that these cases demonstrate that there have been failures of supervision and management. The more we have learned from what the Claimants themselves have told us, from the Operation Herne investigation and from the recent HM Inspectorate of Constabulary report the more we accept that appropriate oversight was lacking. By any standards the level of oversight did not offer protection to the women concerned against abuse. It is of particular concern that abuses were not prevented by the introduction of more stringent supervisory arrangements made by and pursuant to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Metropolitan Police recognizes that this should never happen again and the necessary steps must be taken to ensure that it does not.

"Undercover policing is a lawful and important tactic but it must never be abused.

"In light of this settlement, it is hoped that the Claimants will now feel able to move on with their lives. The Metropolitan Police believes that they can now do so with their heads held high. The women have conducted themselves throughout this process with integrity and absolute dignity.”

From: Claimants in civil cases receive MPS apology


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 20, 2015)

This bit looks likely to encourage the various former undercover police officers who have been granted core participant status at the Pitchford Inquiry - who previously might have been willing to support their bosses' policy of omerta - to have _interesting things to say_ about their managers and the spycop programmes in which they were working:



> ...it has become apparent that some officers, acting undercover whilst seeking to infiltrate protest groups, entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong.


 
No one likes being thrown under a bus, after all.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 20, 2015)

Today's _Guardian_ story:

Police apologise to women who had relationships with undercover officers

And an interview with 'Lisa', the girlfriend of 'Mark Stone' who discovered the Mark Kennedy passport and set the ball rolling:

Lisa Jones, girlfriend of undercover policeman Mark Kennedy: ‘I thought I knew him better than anyone’


----------



## likesfish (Nov 20, 2015)

Still cant see how they justified this program 

Resources are a thing and somebody somewhere had to ask what results are we getting.
That couldnt be got by reading schnews urban and the alternative media and turning up at meetings and staying awake. Your not exactly facing the mafia or PIRA.
  Being told by someone that they are wary of state inflitrators when your locking a social centre up in TA uniform admittidly I had removed my berat so that was probably being underhand.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 20, 2015)

So, it looks as if you subversive malcontents have a pretty effective weapon against infiltrators now; anyone who refuses a shag has outed themselves as police. A conspirator whose commitment is genuine should be prepared to prove themselves thus, whatever their normal preferences would dictate. Perhaps the onerous task of demanding sex from activists under suspicion should be rotated around the group.


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> So, it looks as if you subversive malcontents have a pretty effective weapon against infiltrators now; anyone who refuses a shag has outed themselves as police. A conspirator whose commitment is genuine should be prepared to prove themselves thus, whatever their normal preferences would dictate. Perhaps the onerous task of demanding sex from activists under suspicion should be rotated around the group.



I'm hoping this is an attempt at a joke, but really it's not that funny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> So, it looks as if you subversive malcontents have a pretty effective weapon against infiltrators now; anyone who refuses a shag has outed themselves as police. A conspirator whose commitment is genuine should be prepared to prove themselves thus, whatever their normal preferences would dictate. Perhaps the onerous task of demanding sex from activists under suspicion should be rotated around the group.


fuck off


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm hoping this is an attempt at a joke, but really it's not that funny.


maurice has long been funny peculiar


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck off



That was my initial reply, then I was struck down with a blow of politeness. Glad to see that didn't infect you too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That was my initial reply, then I was struck down with a blow of politeness. Glad to see that didn't infect you too.


no, you've got to be firm but fair with maurice.



firm, anyway.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 20, 2015)




----------



## teqniq (Nov 20, 2015)

nogojones said:


> How come the CPS pressed this one whilst Kennedy and his croneys ain't been charged?
> 
> Woman tricked friend into having sex by pretending to be a man, court hears
> 
> Although the circumstances are a bit different the principle remains


She got eight years for that too. Whilst I do not approve of the deception, not at all, I thought the sentence was really steep especially so in light of their lack of prosecution of Kennedy and co.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2015)

That case sprung to mind too.

I wonder now compensation has been paid Kennedy et al are now free from prosecution in the future?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> That case sprung to mind too.
> 
> I wonder now compensation has been paid Kennedy et al are now free from prosecution in the future?


i doubt it. i imagine they could be sued for e.g. child maintenance. and the relationships with the women might not be all they could be sued for.

next


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2015)

I think it depends on the fine print of anything the women have had to sign regards this. Often payouts in cases like these come with the agreement that it ends it legally and no further action is taken. Although I suspect it might be quite complicated in this case, like maybe it means the Metropolitan Police can't be chased, but the individuals themselves can. (Although whether the women want to engage in another lengthy case is another issue.) Guess we'll find out soon.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2015)

Tolerance of sex crimes is getting less and less. GIve it a few years and they may be ripe for prosecution.


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2015)

Ripe for execution did you say?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 20, 2015)

We should all take a moment to reflect on how these women settled out of court:



> Although no amount of ‘sorry’, or financial compensation, can make up for what we and others have endured, we are pleased the police have been forced to acknowledge the abusive nature of these relationships and that they should never happen.
> By linking our cases together we have been able to evidence a clear pattern of abusive, discriminatory behaviour towards women which amounts to institutional sexism by the Metropolitan police.
> Five years ago, it would have seemed inconceivable to the public that state employees would go to such lengths but the scale of abuse uncovered demonstrates that this was accepted practice for many years.



If how a civil case plays out mean that settling out of court is the best/only option you have, then this is the way to do it.


----------



## newbie (Nov 21, 2015)

Worth noting that the statement makes no apology to, or even acknowledgement of, the children born as a result of these relationships.  I heard a woman on the radio expressing outrage about her children being dismissed like that.  Why am I not surprised the police continue to be so insensitive.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 22, 2015)

Also worth being aware that not all the affected women have accepted the apology or settlement.




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> *However, an eighth woman in the legal action, Kate Wilson, has not accepted the settlement and continues her legal fight.* Wilson, who had a two-year relationship with Kennedy between 2003 and 2005, said that following the discovery of his real identity, “my sense of who I am and what I can believe, have been devastating and I remain haunted by unanswered questions” ........
> *Other women who were deceived into having relationships with undercover officers have yet to settle their legal actions against the police.*


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 22, 2015)

Bob Lambert has finally been forced out of his job at St Andrews university.

Bob Lambert resigns as University lecturer over spying controversy

And mealy-mouthed bullshit of the month award goes to the university's principal:



> Professor Louise Richardson, the outgoing Principal of the University, also spoke to _The Saint_ about the controversy.
> 
> “When Bob Lambert was hired here he made clear that he had been an undercover police officer and he made no effort to disguise that. So he was hired by the University in full knowledge of that. And I think hiring people who have had real world experience in an institution which is teaching counter terrorism in entirely legitimate.
> 
> *In my position I’m not going to get involved in what people do privately whoever they are*, so I think the University were legitimate to hire him and I think it has been reasonable for us to keep him. Students have appreciated his lectures, have learned from him. So I really don’t have anything to add to that saga.”



...I can only assume she's professor of irony or something, on account of the bit in bold 

But anyway, have a nice christmas in the dole queue you cunt.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 22, 2015)

Thought it was Londonmet he was teaching at.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 22, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Thought it was Londonmet he was teaching at.



There too. He resigned from that job earlier this month as well.


----------



## laptop (Dec 22, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> y
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She should be fired just for that wooly thinking


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 22, 2015)

Lambert Resigns!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 22, 2015)

It's worth noting that he's nearly at retirement age, he has business interests both here and overseas, and he resigned, he wasn't sacked.

We're a far way off justice just yet awhile.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 23, 2015)

Uni staff normally have to give a term's notice anyway, so he'd have given his notice either at the end of the summer term or at the start of the autumn term.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 23, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's worth noting that he's nearly at retirement age, he has business interests both here and overseas, and he resigned, he wasn't sacked.
> 
> We're a far way off justice just yet awhile.



What does justice look like? That's a rhetorical question.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 23, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Uni staff normally have to give a term's notice anyway, so he'd have given his notice either at the end of the summer term or at the start of the autumn term.


He handed in his notice two weeks ago, as he had a new job abroad already lined up.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 23, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> He handed in his notice two weeks ago, as he had a new job abroad already lined up.


That's odd, uni staff are generally on such a long notice period because of the disruption losing a member of staff can cause to student teaching and how long it can take to find a replacement. Nevermind,  I won't be shedding any tears over his departure.


----------



## laptop (Dec 23, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> That's odd, uni staff are generally on such a long notice period because of the disruption losing a member of staff can cause to student teaching and how long it can take to find a replacement. Nevermind,  I won't be shedding any tears over his departure.



Which means that a short notice period always suggests that the person was resigned (resign (2): verb transitive).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 23, 2015)

These were quasi-academic sinecures in former cop-stuffed, semi-autonomous research units filled out by seasoned securocrats, of which BL is a prime example. His research work and publishing has tailed off to a trickle. Still no sign of his long-awaited work on Breivik. Few of his former UK academic partners seem to want to be seen with their names up against his at the moment - nor indeed do his business partners.

More coverage:

Ex-undercover officer who infiltrated political groups resigns from academic posts


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2016)

Undercover policeman proposed to activist - BBC News

This "Carlo Neri" would have been in the London SP at the same time I was. I can't say that I remember the fucking worm a dozen or so years later, but I must have met him at some point.

Does anyone else who was in the SP in London between 10 and 15 years ago remember him?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2016)

It's interesting to look at the similarities and differences between the behaviour of undercover cops in different times and places. This guy seems to have avoided "provocateur" stuff, with the solitary exception of one apparently drunken incident which didn't come to anything. He wasn't even the sort to be down the front at even slightly unruly demonstrations. Instead he seems to have been there long term to gather names and trace connections. He also appears to have sought out women who weren't members of the group he was targeting but instead moved in the same circles to manipulate and use as cover - that last bit seems to be something of a pattern across a few of these bastards.

Carlo Neri (alias) - Powerbase


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Jan 18, 2016)

Interesting play related to topic on in Nottingham over next month - Any Means Necessary at Nottingham Playhouse


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 18, 2016)

The Newsnight package is here:



The _Guardian _article (it was a joint investigation by URG, the BBC and Rob Evans, amongst others):

Woman who was engaged to police spy sues Met over 'psychological torture'


----------



## ddraig (Jan 18, 2016)

seriously now, what the fuck do they mean by "collateral intrusion"? sickos


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2016)

ddraig said:


> seriously now, what the fuck do they mean by "collateral intrusion"? sickos


who said that ddraig?


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 19, 2016)

ddraig said:


> seriously now, what the fuck do they mean by "collateral intrusion"? sickos


I bet Shippou-Sensei has that manga...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 19, 2016)

DP?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> who said that ddraig?


The Met, in its statement to Newsnight.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2016)

I've just been reading some of what people have been saying about him on facebook. I still don't remember him, although I've been reminded by my ex that we did definitely know him. Apparently, he came across as very affable, made friends easily, etc, but displayed a lower than average (by the standards of political activists) interest in political theory, history etc. That last part seems to be a theme with most but not all of these characters. That this maggot kept it up for five years, through three "romantic" relationships is enough to make your skin crawl.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 19, 2016)

Reckon there's any truth that they no longer carry out "Long term infiltration deployments"?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Reckon there's any truth that they no longer carry out "Long term infiltration deployments"?



When they are wheeling out a statement like that, it's probably mostly true in a strict sense. ie "long term infiltration deployments" are now being carried out technically under the auspices of some other body rather than the Met's direct command structure. A change in management structure or where the personnel are recruited from at most.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 19, 2016)

Technical surveillance capabilities will bring so much more intelligence, far cheaper than these dirtbags. But I find it hard to believe they'd give it up


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

Statement by the SP on the Carlo Neri infiltration:

Socialist Party :: Police infiltration of the Socialist Party

[ETA: It struck me that I might need to explicitly point out that the bit below is not from the SP statement - which is well worth reading in full via the link above - but my own commentary.]

It's worth noting that the exposure of Neri came not from isolated journalistic endeavour (as Newsnight's “EXCLUSIVE!” banner might lead you to believe), but through the coming together of political activists of a broad range of hues, such as under the banner of COPS [Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance), sharing their experiences, and then doggedly researching.

Whilst the almost unbelievable extent of infiltration may make it seem like there is no point in trying to root out these dogs, nor in trying to effect social change when the forces ranged against us seem so absolute, I feel it is important to point out that aside from Peter Francis, who outed himself, and Jim Boyling (a _special case_), every single exposed undercover officer was identified through the tenacious efforts of those on whom they had spied. And if anything the spying programmes betray a great weakness, a fear, a failure; and not only that, the shared rage and pain has served only to bring together political activists of so many different hues in a way almost unthinkable before.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

And no, Neri will not be the last SDS or NPOIU spycop to be outed.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 19, 2016)

Nigel Irritable said:


> When they are wheeling out a statement like that, it's probably mostly true in a strict sense. ie "long term infiltration deployments" are now being carried out technically under the auspices of some other body rather than the Met's direct command structure. A change in management structure or where the personnel are recruited from at most.



That's what I thought, maybe they get G4S or whoever to do it. Walmart employs Lockheed Martin to spy on labour activists in the US.


----------



## Athos (Jan 19, 2016)

I don't think for a moment that the MPS has suddenly appreciated that what it did was wrong. Instead, I suspect that the decision is motivated by the fact that any intelligence product from such deployments doesn't outweigh the costs, both financially and in terms of PR. Particularly given the capabilities of technical collection techniques e.g. recording devices and/or access to email etc. That said, they will come up against surveillance-aware targets who (unlike a bunch of environmentalists and/or the SP, are involved in serious criminality), where UC is pretty much the only option. But the statement leaves enough wriggle room, here; who says what amounts to 'long term', and what's to stop it being done by a partner agency?


----------



## LDC (Jan 19, 2016)

The move of significant amounts of organizing and communication to open access forms of social media has made deployments such as those much less important than they were, even in the 90s/00s.

If you add in some short term deployments for specific up-coming events, and have a decent network of paid informers in place consistently, they is very little to no need for long term undercover deployments.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 19, 2016)

The Today programme just ran an item on this, with an interview from Kate Wilson, one of Mark Kennedy's relationships.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2016)

I may have got this wrong (exact numbers are definitely wrong here) but I heard that the inquiry has led to the broad identification of around 120 undercover infiltrators of which to date only single figures have been named. As in the SP statement, those named have been outed, not disclosed, and whilst the inquiry will be the usual whitewash, and it won't officially name the others, it may at least provide the opportunity for more clues to arise to discover the identities of some of the other 100+ others. Is my understanding of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2016)

what the fuck were they trying to infiltrate the SP for?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> what the fuck were they trying to infiltrate the SP for?


moscow gold


----------



## nogojones (Jan 19, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Reckon there's any truth that they no longer carry out "Long term infiltration deployments"?


It says the Met doesn't, That leaves a whole host of other options available to them


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> what the fuck were they trying to infiltrate the SP for?


Let's not forget that the SP/ML & YRE were known to be targets of the SDS since Peter Francis first came forward in early 2010. Examination of Mark Jenner's undercover tour show that he also took in a range of SP-linked targets.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2016)

FFS


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I may have got this wrong (exact numbers are definitely wrong here) but I heard that the inquiry has led to the broad identification of around 120 undercover infiltrators of which to date only single figures have been named. As in the SP statement, those named have been outed, not disclosed, and whilst the inquiry will be the usual whitewash, and it won't officially name the others, it may at least provide the opportunity for more clues to arise to discover the identities of some of the other 100+ others. Is my understanding of it.


That's what the woman on the Today programme said as well. 

They really should be disclosed. I find it quite disturbing to think, for example, that there are women out there whose partners ran off, leaving them with a fatherless child, and they don't know that said partner was an undercover police officer.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

nogojones said:


> It says the Met doesn't, That leave a whole host of other options available to them


Without seeing the full statement from the Met it is difficult to fully parse it, but taking Newsnight's paraphrasing in good faith, the statement does not preclude:


Short term* infiltration deployments against protest groups (or anyone else) by the Met or anyone else;
Long term infiltration deployments against protest groups (or anyone else) by units outside of the Met;
Long term infiltration deployments against targets other than 'protest groups' (including but not limited to political parties, informal networks, interest or sectional groups not predominantly focused on 'protest' activity, but instead on lobbying, media work, education, and so on) by the Met or anyone else

Etc.

Then there are the various ways of considering the phrase 'infiltration deployment' - a formulation which lends itself to an intentionally narrow definition (eg might some undercover operations not be considered 'infiltration deployments', or some infiltrations by UCOs likewise be excluded, etc).

*And obviously without defining the parameters of 'long term', a meaningless phrase.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 19, 2016)

Essentially meaningless obfuscatory waffle.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Essentially meaningless obfuscatory waffle.


That is certainly the possible take home message an average person might reasonably, under a broad range of conditions, be expected to consider, notwithstanding any conclusive evidence to the contrary, yes


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

yeh either it's a lie or it's bollocks but in either case it cannot be believed.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 19, 2016)

Apparently on now.



e2a also


----------



## articul8 (Jan 19, 2016)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Undercover policeman proposed to activist - BBC News
> 
> This "Carlo Neri" would have been in the London SP at the same time I was. I can't say that I remember the fucking worm a dozen or so years later, but I must have met him at some point.
> 
> Does anyone else who was in the SP in London between 10 and 15 years ago remember him?



was he one of the antifa crowd?  I have a vague memory of him stewarding at a demo but didn't know him.   dennisr might?


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> moscow gold




....they're still looking....


Russia accused of clandestine funding of European parties as US conducts major review of Vladimir Putin's strategy


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

Worth mentioning that Theresa May is considering extending the remit of the Pitchford Inquiry beyond England & Wales:

Ministers summit on undercover police probing scandal to include Scots police

[The article above extensively uses files shared via the Special Branch Files Project website. SBF is a joint project of the URG and others, which collects together documents that were previously released under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (typically in the early days of FOIA, in hard copy to individual journalists) which the police have subsequently refused to release to others, as well as miscellaneous official reports, court documents, etc.]

As Police Spies Out Of Lives (a group representing the interests of some of those women directly targeted by undercover officers), Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (a broader coalition of groups and individuals spied upon, plus their lawyers and supporters), Undercover Research Group and countless others have pointed out, the SDS and NPOIU spy programmes operated extensively beyond the borders of England and Wales, including in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Iceland, the United States, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Spain, Netherlands, Greece, Thailand, Viet Nam, Belgium and many others...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Also worth being aware that not all the affected women have accepted the apology or settlement.


The ‘Eighth Woman’, Kate Wilson (AKA ‘Lily’), formally won her case last week when the lawyers acting for the Met withdrew its defence.

_The withdrawal of the defence means the force can no longer challenge any of Ms Wilson's legal action, including that police chiefs had been negligent in failing to stop relationships from forming._​
_But, in a legal twist, Ms Wilson's victory also means she may never see documents that explain how and why she was targeted. 

Ms Wilson said: "It is now clear that wrongdoing goes far beyond the individual undercover officers.

"Yet we are denied access to any information about the extent of the intrusion into our lives, who knew and how far up the hierarchy it went.

"How many more women may have been affected by these abuses?

"How many more children may have been fathered by these undercover officers?

"The only way there can be real justice is if the inquiry releases the cover names and opens the files so that these women can come forward themselves."_​
Woman wins undercover officer case against Met Police - BBC News


----------



## laptop (Jan 19, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> The Today programme just ran an item on this, with an interview from Kate Wilson, one of Mark Kennedy's relationships.



It's almost as if they knew in advance that she would win her case today.

Though she did so after the Met dropped its defence, so she doesn't get to see the evidence she sought.

E2A: Snap!


----------



## bimble (Jan 19, 2016)

""The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It's amazing how women don't like you going to bed with someone else," said the officer, whose undercover deployment infiltrating anti-racist groups lasted from 1993 to 1997. ..The former SDS officer, who has now left the Met, said one stipulation by senior commanders was that undercover officers should be married, so that they had something to return to. .'
[ old article Undercover police cleared 'to have sex with activists' ]


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 19, 2016)

laptop said:


> It's almost as if they knew in advance that she would win her case today.
> 
> Though she did so after the Met dropped its defence, so she doesn't get to see the evidence she sought.
> 
> E2A: Snap!



It was reported on the Today programme because she had won her case. At least, that's what I thought they were saying.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

Kate Wilson's case against the Met was heard on Friday - see Tom Fowler's tweets:


----------



## laptop (Jan 19, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> It was reported on the Today programme because she had won her case. At least, that's what I thought they were saying.



Ah, sorry, I missed this:



DaveCinzano said:


> Kate Wilson's case against the Met was heard on Friday - see Tom Fowler's tweets:



So I was wondering about news management by the Met in advance of a hearing today.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

Hot off the press:

*Police Admit Liability But Not The Truth*

Police Admit Liability But Not The Truth - Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance

Also:

_Kate Wilson gives her first UK public talk about her experience at our public meeting in London on Thursday. She will be alongside:

_

_Stafford Scott, race advocacy worker at The Monitoring Group and former co-ordinator of the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign_
_Janet Alder, who has been repeatedly targeted by spycops in her campaign for justice for her brother Christopher, killed by police in 1998_
_Jules Carey, lawyer who represented Ian Tomlinson’s family and now represents several women deceived into relationships with spycops_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2016)

Transcript of debate on undercover policing (and need to extend the terms of the Pitchford Inquiry) in the Scottish Parliament:

TheyWorkForYou


----------



## dennisr (Jan 20, 2016)

articul8 said:


> was he one of the antifa crowd?  I have a vague memory of him stewarding at a demo but didn't know him.   dennisr might?



yep. part of the stewarding team. just goes to show you can never trust a fella who cooks pollenta. i thought his tales of involvement in the red brigades were just cock to try and impress us. it is the rest of the former stewarding team that raised the possibility and put their various memories together - from which the URG folk have been able to put two and two together and dig up clear links and proof. the lass who experienced most of his 'interest' - interviewed by newsnight - has proven to be somebody he should never have fecked with. she is not going to let this go.
the media lovies have been willing to go with an individual 'human interest' story - but won't touch the wider story that is staring them in the face.

Another #spycop exposed: Carlo Neri confirmed as an undercover


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 20, 2016)

dennisr said:


> the media lovies have been willing to go with an individual 'human interest' story - but won't touch the wider story that is staring them in the face.


 
This X 1,000


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 20, 2016)

It's worth reinforcing that if it wasn't for the people who were targeted doggedly following up on what were sometimes very intangible suspicions, the issue of long term undercover infiltration by the police would not be in the public eye at all.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 20, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's worth reinforcing that if it wasn't for the people who were targeted doggedly following up on what were sometimes very intangible suspicions, the issue of long term undercover infiltration by the police would not be an issue in the public eye at all.



Spot on. And to add - without the dogged determination and investigation of the folk such as the Undercover Research Group who interviewed and ran with our initial suspicions - we would still be in the dark.
For years both this and the blacklisting (which was not a seperate issue for many activists i know...) was just a bit of dark banter after sharing a few beers - we knew it - could never put our finger on anything concrete though.

personally - I cannot thank URG researchers enough. But everybody owes them a lot more than many realise.

not that the sniffers managed to stop one of those targeted - at least the ones i know - from being counted when necessary to stand up for the rght thing. I am honoured to know and to have worked with the people i have. each one is worth a 10,000 pitiful snitches doing what they do to pay their shitty little mortgages and live their dirty little servile lives. undercovers like "carlo", my one time "friend", have my pity - but they won't ever be forgotten or forgiven


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2016)

> A woman tricked into a relationship with an undercover police officer has become the first to formally win her case against Scotland Yard.
> 
> Kate Wilson, an environmental campaigner, had a two-year relationship with Mark Kennedy.
> 
> The Metropolitan Police has settled seven other cases out of court - but this is the first time the force has dropped its defence before judges.



Woman wins undercover officer case against Met Police - BBC News


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Worth mentioning that Theresa May is considering extending the remit of the Pitchford Inquiry beyond England & Wales:
> 
> Ministers summit on undercover police probing scandal to include Scots police
> 
> ...


An update on this, as the Scottish press has taken up this issue with vim.

The Home Office has responded to COPS's demand that Pitchford include police spying operations beyond England and Wales (in particular Scotland) saying:

_“At this stage the Inquiry is receiving evidence from as wide a range of persons who can assist with its terms of reference as possible. The inquiry team are interested in the whole story and are bound to encourage those coming forward to provide a complete picture when submitting their evidence. The terms of reference as drafted are, we are advised, already eliciting a significant volume of material for consideration. *The Home Secretary is not minded to expand the terms of reference at this time.*” _​
Scottish media coverage:

Scots counter-terrorism chief worked for secret Met unit now under investigation
New Police chief commanded controversial undercover squad
Women duped into relationship with spy cop demand Pitchford inquiry is widened
Secret police files detail spying on political activists
Chief constable confirms leading Met branch behind undercover unit
Calls for new Police Scotland chief to clarify Met undercover claims - The Scotsman


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2016)

and the six cos?


----------



## laptop (Jan 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and the six cos?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2016)




----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Big Brother - Who's Watching You? Mark Jenner meeting - Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 27, 2016)

Pitchford has amended the list of ‘core participants’ to include two Socialist Party people spied on by Carlo Neri - ‘Lindsey’ (intimate relationship with Neri 2001-2002) and Dave Nellist - and one targeted by Jim Boyling (‘Monica’, intimate relationship 1997). 

https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160127-Core-Participants-number-4-ruling.pdf


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

Long term ops have been binned because somebody looked at the "take or product" or whatever the latest spook term is and Hit the fucking roof .

All that money and bullshit for what exactly might be justified if those targeted were dangerous but they werent so what the fuck was the point


----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> All that money and bullshit for what exactly might be justified if those targeted were dangerous but they werent so what the fuck was the point



Much more popular posting than bank robbers or jihadis


----------



## kingfisher (Jan 27, 2016)

its just pivoted back to  mi5 running the show, socialist party, militant, the "entryism" to the labour party was high high on the box 500 to do list wasnt it? coppers out, spoooks back - i got some jaded mi5 agent with me now what lawyers are good for that? you know blowing the whistle?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 28, 2016)

More likely to be outsourced like every fucking thing else.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 28, 2016)

laptop said:


> Much more popular posting than bank robbers or jihadis


I,d have thought proper gangsters would have better drugs and central heating .

During the cold war understandable and cruise watch we are going to follow military convoys hmm I wonder why the spooks might be interested.?.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 6, 2016)

Seeing as this is the busiest and biggest of the extant spycops threads, I'll park this here...

URG blog post about the ‘semi-exposure’ of undercover animal rights spycop ‘RC’:

RC a #spycop? Police refuses to confirm or deny…

_Today we release a profile of an animal rights activist based in Bedford 2002-2006, whom former colleagues (including a member of URG) now believe was a undercover police officer.


However, the final, definitive bit of documentation that would 100% confirm this person as a police officer is missing. For that reason we refer to him solely as RC, and no pictures of him are included.


This is less than ideal and the responsibility for it lies squarely with the police, who continue to frustrate attempts to uncover injustices in the spycop saga. In response to our request for confirmation, the police ‘intend to maintain the principle of neither confirming nor denying the issues raised‘. However, remaining silent is not an option: firstly, there are potential miscarriages of justice associated with RC being a police officer and secondly, those affected will be hampered from being core participants in the Pitchford Inquiry.


If we are wrong, we will publicly apologise, but we believe we have sufficient evidence to take this step.


In this blog post we explain how we came to the decision to publish an anonymised version of the profile, explaining the way we worked on this case and summarising the evidence at the end against our List of Fifteen Questions..._​
URG wiki on RC:

RC (alias) - Powerbase

Story picked up by the_ Daily Record:_

Hedgehog saviour was undercover cop: South Uist locals look for answers

Meanwhile, spycop alpha male Bob Lambert's most recent academic beard (AKA St. Andrews University, where he was a big fish at the Centre for the Study of Political Violence and Terrorism) is finally looking for someone to replace the alleged arsonist-shaped hole left by his recent departure:

Lecturers in Terrorism and Political Violence at University of St Andrews

They're very fussy when it comes to respect and equality issues (except that whole awkward seducing and sleeping with targets, sireing children you then abandon, allegedly fitting up targets etc):



> The University of St Andrews is committed to promoting equality of opportunity for all, which is further demonstrated through its working on the Gender and Race Equality Charters and being awarded the Athena SWAN award for women in science, HR Excellence in Research Award and the LGBT Charter


----------



## ska invita (Feb 9, 2016)

Police facing call to publish list of their undercover spies


...

Police have admitted that at least 460 political groups have been infiltrated since 1968, but have not made public a list.

The letter from the 133 individuals points out that there are “hundreds of organisations who still have no idea that they were spied upon. This means the overwhelming majority of individuals and organisations targeted since 1968 have had no opportunity to consider the possible consequences of the actions of undercover officers on their work and cannot currently participate as witnesses.”


----------



## likesfish (Feb 9, 2016)

A few of those organisations might have raised legit concerns smash edo was into throwing stones and not cooperating with the police for example


----------



## ska invita (Feb 9, 2016)

Id have thought Smash Edo would be high up the list - but with 460 groups infiltrated the question is who HASNT been infiltrated


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 9, 2016)

likesfish said:


> not cooperating with the police


 
The seditious bastards


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 9, 2016)

Of course, even with the massive levels of harassment, covert surveillance, electronic eavesdropping, possible infiltration and habitually turning over everyone's drum, neither Sussex plod nor the national spooks were able to make the Decommissioners case stick


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Id have thought Smash Edo would be high up the list - but with 460 groups infiltrated the question is who HASNT been infiltrated


the tufty club


----------



## ska invita (Feb 9, 2016)

tufty79 ?


----------



## newbie (Mar 31, 2016)

there's a drama based on kennedy on radio 4 at 2:15 today


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 31, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Id have thought Smash Edo would be high up the list - but with 460 groups infiltrated the question is who HASNT been infiltrated



 Is that a badge of pride or of shame if your group is not on the list?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2016)

ska invita said:


> tufty79 ?


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Police facing call to publish list of their undercover spies
> 
> 
> ...
> ...






> 34 Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army



Dangerous folk, not.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 31, 2016)

Bet the Labour Party is on the list.  The rumour is they had a guy called Tony operating in the upper echelons of the party for a couple of decades.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 31, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Bet the Labour Party is on the list.  The rumour is they had a guy called Tony operating in the upper echelons of the party for a couple of decades.


Not undercover - he turned out be a buy to let landlord


----------



## likesfish (Mar 31, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> The seditious bastards



well if you advertise a huge demo and then arnt prepared to talk to the police.
 the police do have a duty to keep the roads open your right to protest doesnt mean you have a right to do what the fuck you like and sod everyone else


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> well if you advertise a huge demo and then arnt prepared to talk to the police.
> the police do have a duty to keep the roads open your right to protest doesnt mean you have a right to do what the fuck you like and sod everyone else



Read the thread. The police have been using unconscionable tactics to sabotage peaceful protest movments in this country for decades. Nobody has a right to be trusted when they repeatedly violate both trust and basic decency.


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 1, 2016)

newbie said:


> there's a drama based on kennedy on radio 4 at 2:15 today


Listened to that it was alright


----------



## likesfish (Apr 1, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Read the thread. The police have been using unconscionable tactics to sabotage peaceful protest movments in this country for decades. Nobody has a right to be trusted when they repeatedly violate both trust and basic decency.




which is completely unacceptable.
  So is wanting to hold a demo on public roads and not inform anyone of what your planning its a dim tactic.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> which is completely unacceptable.
> So is wanting to hold a demo on public roads and not inform anyone of what your planning its a dim tactic.



The situation you described was a publically advertised mass demonstration, so surely you're telling _everyone_ what you're planning?

Which is different from asking for permission of course. Even if the police had some notional right to grant or withold permission for people to engage in lawful activity, they would have long since forfeited it by virtue of their own despicable behaviour.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> which is completely unacceptable.
> So is wanting to hold a demo on public roads and not inform anyone of what your planning its a dim tactic.



So the potential for some temporary, minor disruption to traffic is comparable to the most extreme level possible of state backed violation of people's privacy?





This lot didn't ask police permission for their demo - completely unacceptable!


----------



## Wilf (Apr 1, 2016)

> Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army



*Coppers Who I Have Sympathy For - a Short Series:*

#1 Filth who had to don the grease paint and arse about at demos using a squeaky voice


----------



## Clint Iguana (Apr 1, 2016)

Radio 4 have dramatised the unmasking of Mark Kennedy
Deep Swimmer, Drama - BBC Radio 4


----------



## Wilf (Apr 1, 2016)

(derail ends)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2016)

Wilf said:


> *Coppers Who I Have Sympathy For - a Short Series:*
> 
> #1 Filth who had to don the grease paint and arse about at demos using a squeaky voice



*ANY* fucker got up in clown gear - the creepiest fucking "fancy dress" in existence - doesn't deserve sympathy, they deserve a shoeing!!!


----------



## Wilf (Apr 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> *ANY* fucker got up in clown gear - the creepiest fucking "fancy dress" in existence - doesn't deserve sympathy, they deserve a shoeing!!!


You get the full horror of the Clown Army throughout that video.  But there's a bit at 2:30 where they go into a 'huddle' to have a discussion about whether they should carry on talking to the coppers in high pitched voices or not.   The fucking state of 'em!


----------



## LDC (Apr 1, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> ... using unconscionable tactics to sabotage_ peaceful _protest movments in this country for decades...



A tricky and somewhat disingenuous line of argument to go down imo.


----------



## Mation (Apr 1, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> A tricky and somewhat disingenuous line of argument to go down imo.


Why? What are you equating?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 1, 2016)

Mation said:


> Why? What are you equating?


Apples and oranges by the sound of it


----------



## likesfish (Apr 1, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The situation you described was a publically advertised mass demonstration, so surely you're telling _everyone_ what you're planning?
> 
> Which is different from asking for permission of course. Even if the police had some notional right to grant or withold permission for people to engage in lawful activity, they would have long since forfeited it.



because chucking paint all over an Army surplus store is completely lawful


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> because chucking paint all over an Army surplus store is completely lawful



a) What are you on about?

b) I don't care, just go away.


----------



## Red Sky (Apr 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> because chucking paint all over an Army surplus store is completely lawful



It was an an Army Recruitment centre iirc, a slightly more politically valid target perhaps.


----------



## Red Sky (Apr 1, 2016)

likesfish said:


> A few of those organisations might have raised legit concerns smash edo was into throwing stones and not cooperating with the police for example



At the time that Smash EDO was infiltrated by 'Marco Jacobs'- for over a year, there had been no 'mass demos'.

 What there had been was an attempt to gain an injunction under the Protection from Harassment that made protesting outside the factory illegal. The police advised the arms manufacturer to seek such an injunction after they had been used successfully to crack down on animal rights protesters. Information gained by the undercover was probably channelled to the offices of Timothy Lawson Cruttenden, the solicitor who made millions out of  the PHA injunctions  and enjoyed a very close relationship with NETCU.


----------



## LDC (Apr 2, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Apples and oranges by the sound of it



No. So, what does 'peaceful protest movement' mean? Do you actually mean non-violent? Is that how they would have described themselves ideologically or strategically (because that wasn't the case for many of them), or are you just describing them as that for some other reason?

And, as well as that being not true for some of the groups infiltrated, it does tend to suggest that it might be OK for the cops to do it to groups that were violent or whose actions resulted in some violence. Classic 'good' protester, 'bad' protester rubbish.

One of the depressing things for me about this whole saga is the amount of 'radicals' who seems to have got a bit confused about the role of the cops and their infiltration and have often ended up towing some odd liberal-type line about how it was a subversion of democracy and just not needed as all the groups were really well-meaning and lovely actually...


----------



## LDC (Apr 2, 2016)

That BBC play was shit of course. And don't even get me started on the fucking clowns...


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2016)

dylanredefined said:


> Is that a badge of pride or of shame if your group is not on the list?


 it seems they were spying on tuck shops and the WI by this point so I'd say shame. I mean you could put it down to organizational discipline and a keen nose for these wronguns. That would be the comforting lie I told myself rather than being ranked under the clown insurgency as a threat to her majesties gov


----------



## likesfish (Apr 2, 2016)

Red Sky said:


> It was an an Army Recruitment centre iirc, a slightly more politically valid target perhaps.



oh dear the argus reach a new low


----------



## Red Sky (Apr 2, 2016)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No. So, what does 'peaceful protest movement' mean? Do you actually mean non-violent? Is that how they would have described themselves ideologically or strategically (because that wasn't the case for many of them), or are you just describing them as that for some other reason?
> 
> And, as well as that being not true for some of the groups infiltrated, it does tend to suggest that it might be OK for the cops to do it to groups that were violent or whose actions resulted in some violence. Classic 'good' protester, 'bad' protester rubbish.
> 
> One of the depressing things for me about this whole saga is the amount of 'radicals' who seems to have got a bit confused about the role of the cops and their infiltration and have often ended up towing some odd liberal-type line about how it was a subversion of democracy and just not needed as all the groups were really well-meaning and lovely actually...



It's more that those who were 'radicals' in the 80s and 90s have moved on and some of them are quite respectable these days. Hence the tendency to view their youthful escapades as somehow being kind of a lobbying tactic within the framework of a liberal democracy. 

There are those who are keen to get themselves in the paper and are quite enjoying the media attention - they're more than happy to play along with Guardian's line.

+


----------



## LDC (Apr 3, 2016)

Red Sky said:


> There are those who are keen to get themselves in the paper and are quite enjoying the media attention - they're more than happy to play along with Guardian's line.



For a few people (none of the women involved though) I do think the attention and re-inforcing of their feeling of self importance has been a factor. And I guess it is much easier to toe the liberal line rather than than slightly harder to be publically honest about radical one. But not surprisingly that also does chime with the actual politics of some people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2016)

likesfish said:


> which is completely unacceptable.
> So is wanting to hold a demo on public roads and not inform anyone of what your planning its a dim tactic.


oh fuck off


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> *ANY* fucker got up in clown gear - the creepiest fucking "fancy dress" in existence - doesn't deserve sympathy, they deserve a shooting!!!


c4u


----------



## two sheds (Apr 3, 2016)

Fucking car drivers eh? Some of em have a bloated view of their own importance. Bit of a party on a motorway for the afternoon becomes bringing the Nation to a standstill


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Fucking car drivers eh? Some of em have a bloated view of their own importance. Bit of a party on a motorway for the afternoon becomes bringing the Nation to a standstill


i suppose you've seen the dover mp comments on yesterday's opposition to the fascists in dover


----------



## two sheds (Apr 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose you've seen the dover mp comments on yesterday's opposition to the fascists in dover



I have now, Jesus.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 20, 2016)

Interesting:



> *The Metropolitan Police Service is carrying out a re-investigation into the planting of an incendiary device in a department store in July 1987.*
> 
> On Saturday, 11 July 1987 an incendiary device was planted in Debenhams in Harrow, believed to be linked to an anti-fur campaign.
> 
> A team is now pursuing a number of lines of enquiry which were identified following a thematic review of the original investigation, by the then Bomb Squad. This will include exploiting potential advances in DNA techniques, new information that has been established by Operation Herne and claims made under parliamentary privilege by an MP in 2012.



Naturally His Bobness will be bursting at the seams to give any help he can.

Re-investigation into the planting of incendiary device


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Associated Press
July 12, 1987, Sunday, AM cycle
Animal Rights Group Claims Responsibility For Three Store Fires

SECTION: International News

LENGTH: 245 words

DATELINE: LONDON



An animal rights group claimed responsibility for planting firebombs which damaged three department stores of the Debenhams chain Sunday, saying it was to protest the sale of fur coats.

The group, the Animal Liberation Front, said the attacks were part of an "economic sabotage" campaign against the chain.

There were no casualties.
The worst fire, in Luton, part of London's commuter belt, raged out of control for nearly five hours and heavily damaged three floors, police said.

Police said the blaze was regarded as highly suspicious, though a search found no trace of incendiary devices.

The London Fire Brigade said firebombs went off at stores in the London suburbs of Harrow and Romford, causing a small fires at each store.

A second firebomb was found and defused at each store.

In telephone calls to the British Broadcasting Corp., the Independent Radio Network and the domestic news agency Press Association, the Animal Liberation Front said the devices were "a form of economic sabotage against stores which sell fur coats in the West End (of London) and the rest of the country."

Debenhams has been a target of firebomb and other attacks by the animal rights group for more than three years. A company spokesman said the fur trade "forms only a small part of the business."

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals condemned the attacks, saying its own campaign against killing animals for their fur could be jeopardized.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Naturally His Bobness will be bursting at the seams to give any help he can.


They could acredit him under CSAS, he could then interview himself, and neither confirm nor deny that he did it.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2016)

Proposal for new rhyming slang: 'Lambert', from Bob = inside job.

Example usage: "Alex Jones says the Bataclan was a proper Lambert."


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 20, 2016)

Would only work if his name was 'Lambert Bob' which it isn't.


----------



## LDC (Apr 20, 2016)

winjer said:


> They could acredit him under CSAS, he could then interview himself, and neither confirm nor deny that he did it.



Maybe he could accidently throw himself down some stairs while in the station too.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Would only work if his name was 'Lambert Bob' which it isn't.


He's changed it before, he'll get used to it.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The Associated Press
> July 12, 1987, Sunday, AM cycle
> Animal Rights Group Claims Responsibility For Three Store Fires
> 
> ...


Was anyone ever banged-up for it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2016)

1%er said:


> Was anyone ever banged-up for it?


Yes


----------



## 1%er (Apr 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes


That changes things


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 21, 2016)

Many many convictions have now been declared unsafe and overturned as a result of undercover police involvement in protest movements.

Charges brought against police, undercovers or handlers, for perverting the course of justice? Nil


----------



## winjer (Apr 21, 2016)

I guess there was some warning when some ACPO-type said  "I would rather be aware of what's happening before an offence is committed. Some will say we are going too far. I would rather we kept our ear to the ground."

Logical next step is to commit the offences, then arrest everyone else as accessory.


----------



## Tom A (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> An animal rights group claimed responsibility for planting firebombs which damaged three department stores of the Debenhams chain Sunday, saying it was to protest the sale of fur coats.



They (or a similar group) did a similar thing to Dingles (part of the House of Fraser) in Plymouth in 1988.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Tom A said:


> They (or a similar group) did a similar thing to Dingles (part of the House of Fraser) in Plymouth in 1988.


with or without the prompting of one pc robert lambert?


----------



## Tom A (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> with or without the prompting of one pc robert lambert?


Can't say. Don't think the perpetrators were ever caught in that instance.


----------



## winjer (Apr 24, 2016)

Finally a use for LinkedIn:

Revealed: Sales engineer from Angus led cops' undercover scandal squad

Scottish detective played key management role in Met 'sex spy' Unit

Scottish ex-officer Paul Hogan spills beans on #spycops unit NPOIU


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 15, 2016)

Police spy accused of urging anti-fascist activists to commit arson


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 15, 2016)

> Two activists say undercover officer known as Carlo Neri tried to incite them to set fire to charity shop run as front for facism



Dog bless the _Graun_


----------



## hot air baboon (Aug 8, 2019)

from this weeks Private Eye


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 8, 2019)

Ah, Good ol'Alaric.

It would be a real shame if his professional activities had been discreetly monitored for, I don't know, getting on for five years because it was so obvious he was a wrong'un, yet too hubristic to effectively cover his tracks, as that might prove massively embarassing for a self-described security guru


----------



## TopCat (Aug 8, 2019)

My son attends KCL and has been inolved in student based occupation stuff there. Have sent him this.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 8, 2019)

In case TopKitten needs to know what he looks like:


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2019)

DaveCinzano said:


> In case TopKitten needs to know what he looks like:
> 
> View attachment 180183


Son knew all about it. Was in the middle of a lot. Was doing occupations and stuff. I was typical dad, trying to sneak in with reup supplies wearing a hi viz and brandishing a clip board. I brought all the wrong stuff.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 9, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Son knew all about it. Was in the middle of a lot. Was doing occupations and stuff. I was typical dad, trying to sneak in with reup supplies wearing a hi viz and brandishing a clip board. I brought all the wrong stuff.


Daaaad! You're so embarassiiiiing!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2019)

DaveCinzano said:


> Daaaad! You're so embarassiiiiing!


It was totally like that.  
No respect for my entry which required picking a lock and looking suave like Mr Bond. Why did I bring beer? Why fags? No one smoked. Only one drank beer. They were all very sweet. It was the support the cleaners campaign.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 3, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Id have thought Smash Edo would be high up the list - but with 460 groups infiltrated the question is who HASNT been infiltrated





Pickman's model said:


> the tufty club





ska invita said:


> tufty79 ?





Nope! Looks like I might have got infiltrated by someone that isn't Kennedy though 

👍


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2021)

Met Police thoroughly defeated in the case brought by Kate Wilson to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to serial sexual predator PC Mark Kennedy.





__





						The Investigatory Powers Tribunal - Judgments
					





					www.ipt-uk.com


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 30, 2021)

1. From 2003 to 2009, a police operation was in place to collect intelligence about public disorder by political activists. The focus was on public disorder that amounted to or involved criminal acts but inevitably also collected intelligence concerning legitimate and lawful public protest. It was decided that a police officer should infiltrate the Sumac Centre in Nottingham which was a known meeting place for a number of campaigning and activist groups. 

2. The officer deployed undercover for this purpose was Mark Kennedy, who served in this capacity throughout this period. His immediate superior, the principal cover officer, to whom he reported regularly also served in that capacity throughout the period. 

3. Any interference by a public authority with a person’s private and family life and home must be “in accordance with the law” if it is to avoid a breach of the right to respect for private and family life which is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The relevant law for this purpose is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) under which an undercover police officer is a “covert human intelligence source” (CHIS) who must act under and in accordance with lawful authorisations issued under RIPA, such authorisations to be reviewed and renewed on a regular basis. 

4. Within months of starting his deployment, Kennedy (a married man with children) had entered into an intimate sexual relationship with Kate Wilson, the Claimant, which lasted until 2005. During that time he insinuated himself into every aspect of her private and family life. Thereafter Kennedy entered into sexual relationships with other women under surveillance, as did a number of other undercover police officers engaged in similar work. 

5. Ms Wilson was active in campaigning circles and attended the Sumac Centre. 
Kennedy realised early on that Ms Wilson would be of help to him in successfully infiltrating the activities of those in the Centre so as to facilitate his gathering of the intelligence he was deployed to collect. 

6. When, many years later, Kennedy’s true role became public, Ms Wilson claimed that a number of her rights under the ECHR (incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998) had been violated. 

7. Ms Wilson claimed that her treatment by Kennedy violated Article 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment); that her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 had been infringed; and that she was also the victim of infringements of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) as well as Article 14 (Convention rights to be secured without discrimination on the ground, inter alia, of sex). 

8. The Respondents admitted that her rights under Articles 3, 8 and 10 had indeed been infringed, but denied violations of Articles 11 and 14. This case has thus been about the nature, extent and severity of the infringements of those Convention rights which the Respondents conceded and whether there had also been violations of Articles 11 and 14. 

9. The police admitted that Kennedy’s deception of the Claimant to enter into a long-term intimate and sexual relationship amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3; and this breach of Article 3 was aggravated by the knowledge of his principal cover officer. The sexual relationship also constituted a gross violation of her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8; and his use of the sexual relationship as a means of obtaining intelligence constituted interference with her right to freedom of expression under Article 10. 

10. One of the Claimant’s arguments was that the entire RIPA regime in place at the time relating to undercover police activities failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the ECHR and accordingly any action authorised under it would not be lawful. However, the Tribunal – though not uncritical of various features of the law – has concluded that the statutory regime did comply with the Convention. 

11. On all other points the Tribunal has found in favour of the Claimant.  

12. Article 3 not only prohibits degrading treatment; it imposes positive obligations to ensure that such treatment does not arise. The same principle of positive obligations arises in connection with Article 8. The Tribunal concluded that a number of factors established a breach of those positive obligations: the inadequacy of Kennedy’s training with regard to sexual relationships; the inadequate supervision and oversight; allowing the same principal cover officer to remain in place throughout the operation; the failure of senior officers, who either knew of the sexual relationship, chose not to know or were incompetent and negligent in not following up on clear signs; and the failure to take steps to prevent a sexual relationship from developing. 

13. The Tribunal also concluded that the infringement of the Claimant’s right to privacy under Article 8 went beyond what the Respondents had conceded. 
Article 8(2) requires that any interference must be “necessary in a democratic society”, which has been held to mean that there must be “a pressing social need”. It must also be proportionate. The Tribunal has concluded that it failed to meet these requirements. 

14. Moreover, the Authorisations granted under RIPA were not in accordance with the law: their breadth and open-ended quality rendered them meaningless as a limit on the undercover officer’s activities and as a protection and the reviews and renewals were perfunctory. Accordingly, the invasion of the Claimant’s private and family life could not be justified under Article 8(2) and therefore amounted to a clear breach of Article 8. 

15. The impact on women of the failure to guard against the risk of undercover officers entering into sexual relationships with them also gave rise to a breach of Article 14. 

16. The Tribunal also found that Ms Wilson’s rights to freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) had also been violated. Details of her political activities over seven years were gathered, recorded, stored and transmitted amounting to a clear interference with her freedom “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority” in the words of Article 8(1). As to Article 11, there was evidence that Kennedy had directly influenced both her political opinions and her movements and as such a breach of Article 11 was established. 

17. In its concluding remarks, the Tribunal notes the significance of the case. Five Articles of the ECHR had been violated: “This is a formidable list of Convention violations, the severity of which is underscored in particular by the violations of Arts 3 and 14. This is not just a case about a renegade police officer who took advantage of his undercover deployment to indulge his sexual proclivities...Our findings that the authorisations under RIPA were fatally flawed and the undercover operation could not be justified as ‘necessary in a democratic society’...reveal disturbing and lamentable failings at the most fundamental levels.”  

18. The Tribunal will now hold a remedies hearing in light of its findings.


----------



## rubbershoes (Sep 30, 2021)

Some sections of the tory party have had the EHCR in their sights for a while.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 30, 2021)

One of those people who can be bothered with FOI requests should try and find out how much cash the met have spaffed away on legal costs defending themselves in these cases they keep fucking losing anyway.


----------



## donkyboy (Sep 30, 2021)

It's rape pure and simple. He should be locked up!!!


----------



## andysays (Jan 25, 2022)

Met Police: Deceived activist Kate Wilson awarded compensation​


> An activist deceived into a relationship with an undercover officer has been awarded £230,000 compensation after a tribunal found the Metropolitan Police breached her human rights.





> Kate Wilson met Mark Kennedy while he was posing as an environmental campaigner in Nottingham in 2003. It later emerged he was married and had sexual relationships with up to 10 other women during his deployment.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 25, 2022)

andysays said:


> Met Police: Deceived activist Kate Wilson awarded compensation​


Right to the last the filth are lying through their teeth:



> "In entering into a sexual relationship, Kennedy's actions went against the training and guidelines undercover officers received at the time.
> 
> "However, the tribunal found that the training was inadequate and more should have been done to consider the risks of male undercover officers forming relationships with women. We accept these findings."


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 25, 2022)

Not much new in it, but got a big write-up in Vice last week:








						How an Undercover Cop Having Sex With Activists Killed a Climate Movement
					

Mark Kennedy spent seven years pretending to be a climate activist. People he deceived are still rebuilding their lives.




					www.vice.com
				




I suppose it is one of those things where the further away we get from Kennedy's deployment, the more we can appreciate just how valuable his contribution was in saving us from having an effective movement around climate change.


----------



## Edie (Jan 25, 2022)

£230k is an absolute fucking insult.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> £230k is an absolute fucking insult.


This. I cannot express my contempt enough.


----------



## Edie (Jan 25, 2022)

You can bearly buy a fucking semi for that and he lied, conned, deceived her, betrayed her, and stole years of her life and trust and _chance of a decent normal life and relationship _for *years*_. _It’s absolutely outrageous.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2022)

Edie said:


> You can bearly buy a fucking semi for that and he lied, conned, deceived her, betrayed her, and stole years of her life and trust and _chance of a decent normal life and relationship _for *years*_. _It’s absolutely outrageous.



It's about a third of what one year of Kennedy's deployment cost. Less in fact, considering what that money would buy you now vs 20 years ago.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 25, 2022)

It would be interesting if we managed to see how his life turned out. I guess we won't unless he writes a book. It can't be pretty though living a double life and deceiving people.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 25, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's about a third of what one year of Kennedy's deployment cost.


According to Kennedy's own claims to the _Daily Mail_


----------



## Dystopiary (Jan 26, 2022)

And let's not forget that he did it again and again.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> And let's not forget that he did it again and again.



And that after he was exfiltrated by NPOIU he decided to go back as a freelance spy.


----------



## Ming (Jan 26, 2022)

Wonder what ever happened to our own spy cop? That fella who did the Urburn thing? Anyone know?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2022)

Ming said:


> Wonder what ever happened to our own spy cop? That fella who did the Urburn thing? Anyone know?


'Rob Harrison' AKA Boogie Boy - still out there...









						Rob Harrison - profile released
					

Released today, profile of spycop Rob Harrison, the undercover who infiltrated London International Solidiarty Movement and direct action groups from 2004 to 2007.



					undercoverresearch.net
				












						'Creepy, nervous loser': UK undercover cop who infiltrated anti-war & pro-Palestine groups exposed
					

'A perfect Wallflower'




					www.thecanary.co
				












						Undercover officer rekindled relationship seven years later, inquiry told
					

‘Rob Harrison’ reappeared in woman’s life in 2014, before disappearing again




					www.theguardian.com
				












						HN 18 - Undercover Policing Inquiry
					






					www.ucpi.org.uk


----------



## Ming (Jan 26, 2022)

DaveCinzano said:


> 'Rob Harrison' AKA Boogie Boy - still out there...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What a piece of shit.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It would be interesting if we managed to see how his life turned out. I guess we won't unless he writes a book.


Given his track record I wouldn't hold out any hope of meaningful self-reflectiveness, candour or honesty.

On top of all the on-the-clock lies and deception as he pretended to be 'Mark Stone', and his previously-noted short private sector stint as same, he lied to the activists who confronted him, lied in the _Daily Mail_ interview, lied in the documentary film arranged by his agent (both UK and Australian versions), lied in his evidence to Parliament, and - I'm being generous here - was _less than entirely accurate_ with some of the intelligence he supplied to both NPOIU and the various agencies in Europe and North America to whom they loaned him.

In case that view might seem like I endorse the 'rotten apple' hypothesis, I should probably also note that at every stage of this farrago virtually the entire senior leadership of UK policing has also been lying.


----------



## Ming (Jan 26, 2022)

DaveCinzano said:


> Given his track record I wouldn't hold out any hope of meaningful self-reflectiveness, candour or honesty.
> 
> On top of all the on-the-clock lies and deception as he pretended to be 'Mark Stone', and his previously-noted short private sector stint as same, he lied to the activists who confronted him, lied in the _Daily Mail_ interview, lied in the documentary film arranged by his agent (both UK and Australian versions), lied in his evidence to Parliament, and - I'm being generous here - was _less than entirely accurate_ with some of the intelligence he supplied to both NPOIU and the various agencies in Europe and North America to whom they loaned him.
> 
> In case that view might seem like I endorse the 'rotten apple' hypothesis, I should probably also note that at every stage of this farrago virtually the entire senior leadership of UK policing has also been lying.


So much for policing by concent.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2022)

Ming said:


> So much for policing by concent.


To return to the Tribunal's own words:



> This is not just a case about a renegade police officer who took advantage of his undercover deployment to indulge his sexual proclivities...Our findings that the authorisations under RIPA were fatally flawed and the undercover operation could not be justified as ‘necessary in a democratic society’...reveal disturbing and lamentable failings at the most fundamental levels.


----------



## Ming (Jan 26, 2022)

DaveCinzano said:


> To return to the Tribunal's own words:


I’m sure lessons were learned (how to not get caught and how to get out of it if you are).


----------



## Edie (Jan 26, 2022)

It’s absolutely wild. Completely amoral.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It would be interesting if we managed to see how his life turned out. I guess we won't unless he writes a book. It can't be pretty though living a double life and deceiving people.



He should be chased down for the compensation money. Him and his handlers. Otherwise it's taxpayers paying out for his crimes twice over.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> He should be chased down for the compensation money. Him and his handlers. Otherwise it's taxpayers paying out for his crimes twice over.


As I've said before, there is culpability on three tiers.

The actual undercover officers themselves, their cover officers and the support and training staff.

The managers and senior police leadership who asked for, established, funded, sustained, protected and then walked away pretending it was nothing to do with them.

The politicians in government who received intelligence material and in some cases drove intelligence priorities.

Let them all face public scrutiny, financial penalties and harsh punishment.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 26, 2022)

230 grand is way too low, they got off far too lightly. But I suppose at least there's been some admission of failure/guilt and some compo. So not a total loss


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2022)

Chilli.s said:


> 230 grand is way too low, they got off far too lightly. But I suppose at least there's been some admission of failure/guilt and some compo. So not a total loss



No criminal charges for anyone responsible and none of them are obliged to pay a penny themselves. That's not getting off lightly, it's getting off scot free.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 26, 2022)

all the spy cop fuckers and their bosses should be in prison. And yeah -  the amount of compensation is utterly insulting.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 26, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> No criminal charges for anyone responsible and none of them are obliged to pay a penny themselves. That's not getting off lightly, it's getting off scot free.


You are absolutely right, it is a step towards an admission of what we all know to be more justice for a complete travesty


----------

