# Spying on Activists: Why no Double Agents?



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same?  Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure?  But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know.  Does anyone?


----------



## dylanredefined (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.
> 
> Why don't activist groups do the same?  Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.
> 
> ...



		  Their not spooks so the first thought is " Lets hurt the shit" not this is  "An asset we can use". Then you have to use your double agent effectively
which is a skill and mindset fortunately  not commonly available. Spooks are total bastards.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

if the activist outfit catch you being a tout you are going to have to stop being in the group and go draw a pension/write a book. If the state catch you playing double you are going to  prison for a long long time. Its all about having the monopoly on violence in the end.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.
> 
> Why don't activist groups do the same?  Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.
> 
> ...


because it would be a stupid idea. to turn someone into a double agent you have to have something on them, and knowing they're a copper won't do the trick as they have the resources of the government behind them. they are paid by the state. they are supported by the state. non-state groups like activist organisations don't have the resources or wherewithal to isolate and interrogate/debrief an undercover cop, who could in any event be expected to have had some form of anti-interrogation training. even if they agreed to act as a double agent, how would you be able to trust them and what would you really hope to gain? they've been lying to people who thought they were friends or lovers for many years and they could not really supply information which would be useful for group decisions.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> because it would be a stupid idea. to turn someone into a double agent you have to have something on them, and knowing they're a copper won't do the trick as they have the resources of the government behind them. they are paid by the state. they are supported by the state. non-state groups like activist organisations don't have the resources or wherewithal to isolate and interrogate/debrief an undercover cop, who could in any event be expected to have had some form of anti-interrogation training. even if they agreed to act as a double agent, how would you be able to trust them and what would you really hope to gain? they've been lying to people who thought they were friends or lovers for many years and they could not really supply information which would be useful for group decisions.



and then there is the triple 'guess what Your Maj? they think I'm informing on you! feed me irrelevant things that are concrete enough for minor results then they will trust me when I feed them misdirection you provide me with'

How can any clandestine org ever trust an admitted traitor who claims they are playing traitor to get information. You'd have to cut them off completely- nothing they say could be trusted. A turncoat is a turncoat, no matter how often he turns it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.
> 
> Why don't activist groups do the same?  Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.
> 
> ...



I'd suppose it's because the govt, on catching a spy, has very large power, either to bargain or compel. The govt can make 'an offer you can't refuse'.  Activist groups don't have that same ability.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and then there is the triple 'guess what Your Maj? they think I'm informing on you! feed me irrelevant things that are concrete enough for minor results then they will trust me when I feed them misdirection you provide me with'
> 
> How can any clandestine org ever trust an admitted traitor who claims they are playing traitor to get information. You'd have to cut them off completely- nothing they say could be trusted. A turncoat is a turncoat, no matter how often he turns it.


yeh and there's to my mind only one entirely effective way to deal with a tout


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Their not spooks so the first thought is " Lets hurt the shit" not this is  "An asset we can use". Then you have to use your double agent effectively
> which is a skill and mindset fortunately  not commonly available. Spooks are total bastards.



That may be true, but some activists are bastards too.

And in any case, surely the impulse to hurt the guy is more bastardly than the impulse to turn him?


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> because it would be a stupid idea. to turn someone into a double agent you have to have something on them, and knowing they're a copper won't do the trick as they have the resources of the government behind them.



I'm not necessarily talking about coppers (although quite frankly the cops they send to spy on UK activists look to me like a bunch of untrained clowns who wouldn't stand up to 2 seconds of pressure).

But a corporate spy--they kind who work for McDonalds and Microsoft, those C21 guys etc--they don't have state protection, nor do they feel loyalty to their employers.  And I bet many of them hate what they do and would be quite happy to fight for the good guys for a while.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh and there's to my mind only one entirely effective way to deal with a tout



What's that then tough guy?


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'd suppose it's because the govt, on catching a spy, has very large power, either to bargain or compel. The govt can make 'an offer you can't refuse'.  Activist groups don't have that same ability.



Anyone has the _ability, _if they're sufficiently ruthless and brave_.  _The question is: do they have the _will?  _I suspect not.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But a corporate spy--they kind who work for McDonalds and Microsoft, those C21 guys etc--they don't have state protection, nor do they feel loyalty to their employers.  And I bet many of them hate what they do and would be quite happy to fight for the good guys for a while.


I imagine most of that type would simply work for whoever can pay them the most.


----------



## ddraig (May 19, 2014)

also they probably don't and never will 'get it' whatever that 'it' is in that situation


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and then there is the triple 'guess what Your Maj? they think I'm informing on you! feed me irrelevant things that are concrete enough for minor results then they will trust me when I feed them misdirection you provide me with'



Well there is that--the double agent can become a triple agent.  That's probably what Philby did imo.  But Philby was a genius.  Does Mark Kennedy/Stone strike you as a genius?

You just have to be smarter than them is all...


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I imagine most of that type would simply work for whoever can pay them the most.



Or for whoever will hurt them the least.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Well there is that--the double agent can become a triple agent.  That's probably what Philby did imo.  But Philby was a genius.  Does Mark Kennedy/Stone strike you as a genius?
> 
> You just have to be smarter than them is all...




Philby and his ilk were recruited and from the highest echelons of society, they were plugged in 'made men' of the Establishment. The trust was implicit and high level.

Thats why they got away with it. Then.

it doesn't translate to what we have today imo!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone has the _ability, _if they're sufficiently ruthless and brave_.  _The question is: do they have the _will?  _I suspect not.


so not _anyone_ has the ability as not _everyone_ will be sufficiently ruthless and brave.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> What's that then tough guy?


obvious really. but it no longer seems the common practice.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Philby and his ilk were recruited and from the highest echelons of society, they were plugged in 'made men' of the Establishment. The trust was implicit and high level.
> 
> Thats why they got away with it. Then.
> 
> it doesn't translate to what we have today imo!



Philby didn't get away with it.  British Intelligence caught him in 1955, and presumably turned him then.  But either the Russians never realized that, or (more likely) he managed to turn himself back again.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so not _anyone_ has the ability as not _everyone_ will be sufficiently ruthless and brave.



That's right.  That's why I used the qualifier "if."

Actually it's more ruthlessness than bravery.  And I suspect that is the true answer to my question: activists don't turn spies into double agents because they're not ruthless enough to do what it takes.  And thank God for that.


----------



## existentialist (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.
> 
> Why don't activist groups do the same?  Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.
> 
> ...


It takes a lot of resources and organisation to run spies/informants into any organisation. To turn an informant would be tricky enough as it is, but the resources needed to support and protect them would be way beyond the kind of organisations that get spied on in the first place.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It takes a lot of resources and organisation to run spies/informants into any organisation. To turn an informant would be tricky enough as it is, but the resources needed to support and protect them would be way beyond the kind of organisations that get spied on in the first place.



This is what I don't understand.

What's so difficult about saying: "Look Mate, you're busted, and we know where your kids go to school.  But as long as you tell Ronald McDonald that the protest is next Thursday instead of Friday, we'll pretend nothing ever happened."

Well of course I know what's difficult about it--you have to be a complete bastard to say it.  But it's not _practically _difficult is it?


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

Leaving aside trying to 'turn' undercover police officers or corporate spies, what about if someone approaches an activist and tries to recruit them? The activist could "agree" to become a spy/informer but in reality they could deliberately feed and mixture of fact and misinformation cooked up by the group in question. Does this as qualify as a "double agent" or is it something else?


----------



## dylanredefined (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That may be true, but some activists are bastards too.
> 
> And in any case, surely the impulse to hurt the guy is more bastardly than the impulse to turn him?



   I would say since turning the spy is a long drawn out process and you have to have a certain mindset to do that sort of thing.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Leaving aside trying to 'turn' undercover police officers or corporate spies, what about if someone approaches an activist and tries to recruit them? The activist could "agree" to become a spy/informer but in reality they could deliberately feed and mixture of fact and misinformation cooked up by the group in question. Does this as qualify as a "double agent" or is it something else?



That would be a double agent.  

But that's not how spies get into activist organizations, there's no need.  They just show up and ask to get involved.


----------



## classicdish (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That would be a double agent.
> 
> But that's not how spies get into activist organizations, there's no need.  They just show up and ask to get involved.



Police try to recruit activist to spy on Cambridge students and political groups - video (November 2013)

also

Police techniques for recruiting and running informants revealed - Police use money and ruses to persuade campaigners to inform on their fellow activists (March 2014)


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> obvious really. but it no longer seems the common practice.



Ah yes, extrajudicial murder. That one's guaranteed to get the state off your back.

Presumably there are bonus points for abducting your victim in front of her children?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

You could always just not tell your tout that he's busted, and use him to lead his bosses up the garden path by feeding him information about stuff that's not happening or people who don't exist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

classicdish said:


> Police techniques for recruiting and running informants revealed - Police use money and ruses to persuade campaigners to inform on their fellow activists (March 2014)



In this case I might be tempted to take their money and see how much complete bullshit I can feed them before they cotton on. They're not gonna take me to court to try and get the money back are they?


----------



## Corax (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.
> 
> Why don't activist groups do the same?  Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.
> 
> ...


What levers of persuasion (power) do the state have to effect that betrayal? 

What levers do activist groups have? 

You already know this. Why am I playing?


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> In this case I might be tempted to take their money and see how much complete bullshit I can feed them before they cotton on. They're not gonna take me to court to try and get the money back are they?



True, spies tend to skip the courts.  But you might wish they hadn't.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You could always just not tell your tout that he's busted, and use him to lead his bosses up the garden path by feeding him information about stuff that's not happening or people who don't exist.



In which case he would realize what was happening as soon as the first tip didn't pan out.  And you wouldn't know that he'd realized.  So then you'd really be screwed.

No, it would have to be done with the spy's knowledge and co-operation.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You could always just not tell your tout that he's busted, and use him to lead his bosses up the garden path by feeding him information about stuff that's not happening or people who don't exist.


do you think before you post or just bash the keyboard?

let's take mark kennedy for example. yer man made damn sure he was in a large number of networks. it is very unlikely that any of these networks could have turned him, but let's assume one had. then they would have a moral obligation to tell other networks that he was a police spy. how long do you think it would have been before this got back to the national public order intelligence unit one way or another?


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Corax said:


> What levers do activist groups have?



All sorts.  Tons.  Use your imagination.

As I said, the problem isn't practical--it's not _difficult_ to make a double agent.  The problem is morality--it's _nasty work _making a double agent.  The kind of activist we're talking about here is too moral to do it.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> let's take mark kennedy for example. yer man made damn sure he was in a large number of networks. it is very unlikely that any of these networks could have turned him, but let's assume one had. then they would have a moral obligation to tell other networks that he was a police spy.



Don't be sillier than usual.

There's no moral obligation if he's working for their side now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think before you post or just bash the keyboard?
> 
> let's take mark kennedy for example. yer man made damn sure he was in a large number of networks. it is very unlikely that any of these networks could have turned him, but let's assume one had. then they would have a moral obligation to tell other networks that he was a police spy. how long do you think it would have been before this got back to the national public order intelligence unit one way or another?



It's not a long term strategy I'll give you that, but before outing Kennedy he could have been fed some choice misinformation. A few days could have been long enough to trigger a massive police mobilisation against a fictional action, not unlike the Nottingham school raid which Kennedy's information led to, and expose the whole undercover plod fiasco in the most damaging and humiliating way possible.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Don't be sillier than usual.
> 
> There's no moral obligation if he's working for their side now.


don't be such a stupid cunt. mk was involved with anti-fascists and with environmentalists, among others. there's two sides already, and it's quite possible that he was pretty much the only link between some networks. should eg the environmentalists say nothing to the anti-fascists and make sure mk's feeding bollocks about environmentalism and not worrying what he's saying about anti-fascists? it's not "the government" and "everyone else" - there's a load of 'sides' or interested parties.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

I knew Kennedy and I know the people who exposed him. It's fair to say they weren't in a position to think of the possible strategic advatnages of the situation at the time, which is understandable in the crcumstances.

e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 19, 2014)




----------



## Corax (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> *All sorts.  Tons.  Use your imagination.*
> 
> As I said, the problem isn't practical--it's not _difficult_ to make a double agent.  The problem is morality--it's _nasty work _making a double agent.  The kind of activist we're talking about here is too moral to do it.


No, the whole post please.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


>



i gave you a like but please don't post any more billy bragg


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ah yes, extrajudicial murder.



yeh cos the state never commits extrajudicial murder


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos the state never commits extrajudicial murder




I generally think that a lot of stuff the state does is bad, that's kinda why I'm opposed to it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I generally think that a lot of stuff the state does is bad, that's kinda why I'm opposed to it.


apparently in a rather half-hearted fashion


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> apparently in a rather half-hearted fashion



They executed loads of people after the French Revolution.

About a fortnight later, they had an emperor instead of a king.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> They executed loads of people after the French Revolution.
> 
> About a fortnight later, they had an emperor instead of a king.


you're telescoping the french revolution and collapsing the events of 1789-1800.

the point you seem to be making is that they didn't guillotine all the right people


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you're telescoping the french revolution and collapsing the events of 1789-1800.
> 
> the point you seem to be making is that they didn't guillotine all the right people



The point I was trying to make is that simply murdering people you don't like may not be the best way to bring lasting political change.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The point I was trying to make is that simply murdering people you don't like may not be the best way to bring lasting political change.


let's put it this way: is france a monarchy or a republic?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> let's put it this way: is france a monarchy or a republic?



In this day and age it makes precisely no difference.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> In this day and age it makes precisely no difference.



Too early to tell if it makes a difference


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> In this day and age it makes precisely no difference.


right. so 225 years after the start of the french revolution, when pretty much every country was a monarchy in 1789 pretty much no countries are now (bar some obsolescent constitutional monarchies in which the monarchy doesn't rule but legitimises government, and of course lesotho and saudi arabia). i'd say that the getting rid of monarchies is at least a step in the right direction.


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> don't be such a stupid cunt. mk was involved with anti-fascists and with environmentalists, among others. there's two sides already, and it's quite possible that he was pretty much the only link between some networks. should eg the environmentalists say nothing to the anti-fascists and make sure mk's feeding bollocks about environmentalism and not worrying what he's saying about anti-fascists? it's not "the government" and "everyone else" - there's a load of 'sides' or interested parties.



Sorry, but I can't make any sense of this.  Anyone else fancy having a go?


----------



## phildwyer (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing.



But if they'd kept their heads, and asked him to turn before exposing him in public, he'd presumably have said "yes" freely and of his own accord.  Right?  In which case they'd have had a pretty damn valuable asset, and no need for dirty work either.  Lord only knows what they might have achieved with that kind of mole.

Oh well, Monday morning quarterback and all that.  Worth bearing in mind for next time though.


----------



## friedaweed (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> *I knew Kennedy and I know the people who exposed him. It's fair to say they weren't in a position to think of the possible strategic advatnages of the situation at the time, which is understandable in the crcumstances.
> 
> e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing*.


Has Jazzz nicked your log in


----------



## 8ball (May 19, 2014)

What you want is triple-agents - at least that way you can start off with them inside your organisation.


----------



## free spirit (May 19, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not a long term strategy I'll give you that, but before outing Kennedy he could have been fed some choice misinformation.


it's odd that nobody thought of that at the time...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, but I can't make any sense of this.  Anyone else fancy having a go?


that's because you're stupid. 

it's simple enough for anyone else to understand, but not it seems for a snivelling failure like your good self. you make out there's a couple of sides, but the situation's more complex than that as per my examples in previous post you can't get your wanker head about.


----------



## existentialist (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> This is what I don't understand.
> 
> What's so difficult about saying: "Look Mate, you're busted, and we know where your kids go to school.  But as long as you tell Ronald McDonald that the protest is next Thursday instead of Friday, we'll pretend nothing ever happened."
> 
> Well of course I know what's difficult about it--you have to be a complete bastard to say it.  But it's not _practically _difficult is it?


Well, there's a few minor problems.

First of all, your agent goes back to his principals and says "these people are threatening my family", and his principals, if they have any interest in their spy continuing to operate as such, take the necessary steps and instruct him to say "Dunno what you're on about, guv"; either that or they decide that their man is blown and pull him out.

And you need resources. Lots of resources. Years ago, I used to work for a firm that did a little work for a firm that did a little work for a firm, etc., that did interesting things with surveillance and so on: if I learned anything (given that I wasn't anywhere NEAR the interesting stuff), it's that with anything covert, you basically start off by multiply the manpower by 9 - case handlers, liaison, communications, all that stuff. All this stuff of James Bond wandering off on his own is fairy story stuff. And, while I don't imagine police spies are particularly concerning themselves about co-ordinated anti-espionage stuff, it's going to be built into the system with all kinds of safety mechanisms. 

You'd essentially need to match that, and then some, to set up and run a double. The motivation would have to be there, too - no point blackmailing them, this would be about ideology, not threats, it's a copper, remember - and they'd need to be VERY sure that you could look after them, especially given that they've already demonstrated that they could penetrate your operation. Just supposing you got a live one, he'd been converted to your cause, and was tempted to double, HE is going to need to be sure that there isn't someone else in your operation who's reporting back and who could burn him.

It just wouldn't be worth the bother.


----------



## existentialist (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> True, spies tend to skip the courts.  But you might wish they hadn't.


That's one very poorly looking man


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2014)

existentialist said:


> That's one very poorly looking man


He's about to die. That's why. 

As for the op, how do you know it hasn't happened?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 19, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.
> 
> So I don't know.  Does anyone?



Kennedy is a duplicitous little shit who is only interested in himself. His regrets about his undercover role being exposed were about him no longer being able to live it up in the activist scene with the taxpayer footing the considerable bill. 
He was whoring himself out to private security firms to carry on  spying on his mates and lover after the cops withdrew him from his undercover role - then blubbing to the media about how badly he'd been treated.


----------



## Ax^ (May 19, 2014)

we know have an urban parents section..

think of the possibilities...



*rubs chin*


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I knew Kennedy and I know the people who exposed him. It's fair to say they weren't in a position to think of the possible strategic advatnages of the situation at the time, which is understandable in the crcumstances.
> 
> e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing.


This has been bugging me for years now, so I'm just going to spit it out as I think the record needs to be set straight a bit on Kennedy, and the narrative that he managed to operate undetected for a decade until he was finally exposed in 2010.

Kennedy was first sussed out in 2005 before the stirling G8 protests, and AFAIK a significant portion of Dissent's main organisers were aware of these strong well founded suspicions. The problem being that these were based on the knowledge that one person among a small group of people was undercover, and only if you were sure that none of the others could be would you then be able to conclude by a process of elimination that Kennedy was undercover.

I was told at the time that this had been raised with members of his affinity group who defended him and made counter allegations that it must have been someone else, meaning that the whole thing was dropped as it wasn't possible to prove either way and was in danger of causing a big split at a crucial time.

He was kept away from key decision making and generally frozen out of anything other than driving minibuses as far as possible, and he was also being fed some false information aimed at ensuring the police kept their forces spread across Edinburgh, and Glasgow rather than concentrating them all on Gleneagles / Stirling.

It's not a coincidence that the only fight on site during the entire time involved him vs one of those who basically knew he was undercover plod, though I didn't witness exactly what was said to kick it off.

Fuck knows what went on afterwards, I walked away myself and lost touch with the others who'd sussed him, but I suspect that the 3 (or more?) undercovers between them were able to use their combined influence to effectively squeeze out those who'd had suspicions about him, and build their own powerbase within the movement. After Stirling most of those heavily involved were completely fucked financially and emotionally*, so most would have needed to withdraw a bit to sort ourselves out - not something that undercover plod need to concern themselves with as they are completely financially sorted and can jut go at it full time while the rest were trying to sort themselves out, or being too distracted by the efforts to set up social centres in their own areas to really concern themselves too much with what was happening in other areas... plus a feeling of not sticking their nose where it's not wanted, and a fair amount of mud also being flung in their direction (the best defence to an accusation of being a tout apparently being to attack your accusers).

Somewhere along the lines it seemed that most of those who were in the groups who'd directly been infiltrated ended up moving on to running the climate camps outside of Dissent, and those who'd had there suspicions of Kennedy were largely frozen out / decided not to get involved, so those suspicions just got forgotten about. I must admit that I'd just assumed that someone would have sorted it out if we'd been right, so didn't have the confidence to actually do something about it - also as I wasn't involved, I didn't realise he was still active, I'd thought he would have been pulled out after pretty much having his cover blown at Stirling.

The last couple of paragraphs are mostly speculation, but is my attempt at explaining how it was that we went from a situation where several people had identified Stone as undercover plod and were using this against the police to some extent into a situation where he was able to continue and extend his undercover work for another 5 years.

I don't know the specifics of exactly who was told what, but I'm pretty sure that at least some of those who were close to him in 20005 were warned about him, but didn't heed the warning and defended him instead. I might be wrong, but suspect that some of those who later exposed him probably had suspicions that stretched back to 2005 and been at least vaguely aware of the allegations against him from that point

so that's my alternative narrative, I've hinted at it several times before, but need to get it on the record while I can still actually remember it. I'm sure this will piss some people off and maybe I'll be accused of victim blaming again or something, I just think that if we don't know about the history then we're more likely to be condemned to repeat the mistakes again in future. Plus it narks me that the official narrative makes it look as if Kennedy pulled the wool over the eyes of the entire movement for a decade, when that's just not true. 

Mistakes were made, and we should have had the courage of our convictions and properly exposed him back in 2005 - not just him actually, one of my mates had film footage of 3 undercovers who'd been targetting the free party scene in the run up to the G8, so we might have been able to expose 3 of them back then, though the footage was pretty dark.


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2014)

ps at the time I wasn't really sure who or what to believe, or entirely sure who it was that had been pointed out to me as it was all pretty hectic. It was only really thinking back to that time when this all came out that the memories of the conversations came back to me and I realised that the warnings back then had been right.


----------



## classicdish (May 20, 2014)

They didn't come up with the idea for the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army as well did they?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone has the _ability, _if they're sufficiently ruthless and brave_.  _The question is: do they have the _will?  _I suspect not.



That's very romantic and idealistic of you.

The govt can offer money/lengthy prison sentences/family difficulties/etc.

By far the majority of activist groups would not have the resources to provide anywhere near that incentive level.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> This has been bugging me for years now, so I'm just going to spit it out as I think the record needs to be set straight a bit on Kennedy...



This is not an angle I've heard before, but it's plausible. The trouble I suppose is how do you move from idle speculation to concrete evidence, without spreading nasty rumours about a potentially innocent person and without resorting to witch hunt tactics. IIRC the key piece of evidence against Kennedy was stumbled upon more or less by accident, or at least it was blind luck that he was stupid enough to have such evidence lying around. Without that evidence I don't know how any kind of move could have been made agaisnt Kennedy, particularly if there were other undercovers muddying the waters.

And it's only natural to defend your mates. It's blood curdling to think of someone you know and trust being capable of that kind of deception. If those with suspicions managed to freeze him out to some extent then that might have been the best they could achieve without potentially doing a lot more harm than good.

I'll pick you up on one point though, there was _one_ other fight at Gleneagles. It involved an individual who decided to start playing the bagpipes in the middle of camp at about midnight the day before everyone was due to head off on their actions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 20, 2014)

At the time Kennedy was finally exposed I had taken an extended leave of absence from activism, not least because it had left me homeless and penniless, so I don't know the ins and outs of what happened or who was involved. But Mark Stone is still an open wound in these parts, you just don't mention the subject around those who were close to him, still less ask questions about it. Most if not all of them have effectively retired from the scene now anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 20, 2014)

It's interesting to see that after my idea of feeding a suspected tout false information was shot down in flames, it turns out that may be exactly what happened in Mark Kennedy's case. 

As well as misleading the police of course, it could help you confirm your suspicions about a possible undercover plod. If your target is innocent, there's no real harm done and they don't even need to find out they were under suspicion.


----------



## likesfish (May 20, 2014)

Well if "activist" groups were highly disciplined organised and run by a sufficently tight leadership
  Possibly but then if they were like that some bloke turning up with a handy minibus plus useful gear wouldnt get very far.
   The fact the covert officers were around so long for so little gain is embarrassing. If your planning violent protests or think shadowing military or nuclear movements is a good idea then release the covert assets of the state.
   But annoying protesters do not require long term covert agents to be run.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> This has been bugging me for years now, so I'm just going to spit it out as I think the record needs to be set straight a bit on Kennedy, and the narrative that he managed to operate undetected for a decade until he was finally exposed in 2010.
> 
> Kennedy was first sussed out in 2005 before the stirling G8 protests, and AFAIK a significant portion of Dissent's main organisers were aware of these strong well founded suspicions. The problem being that these were based on the knowledge that one person among a small group of people was undercover, and only if you were sure that none of the others could be would you then be able to conclude by a process of elimination that Kennedy was undercover.
> 
> ...



That's really interesting, thanks for posting.

Sounds to me like the answer to my question, in this case at least, was that there were just too many undercovers involved.  One might (if one were a bastard) be able to intimidate one into switching sides, but not three.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

existentialist said:


> First of all, your agent goes back to his principals and says "these people are threatening my family", and his principals, if they have any interest in their spy continuing to operate as such, take the necessary steps and instruct him to say "Dunno what you're on about, guv"; either that or they decide that their man is blown and pull him out.



I assume you don't have kids then?

Because, faced with the choice between the slightest chance of harm coming to their child and giving Ronald McDonald the wrong date for a demo, 100% of parents would choose the latter.

So it can't be that hard to turn a single individual.  Remember that we're not necessarily talking about cops here--I admit that would be more difficult, although Kennedy/Stone apparently did offer to switch sides.  But some recent Oxbridge grad working for Mickey D's and suddenly finds himself in over his head?  No problem, surely?

Now, I'm very glad that activist groups don't go in for this sort of thing--it's what makes us better than them etc.  But I'm surprised.  I've no doubt that many such groups include some genuine psychos who would be more than willing--Pickman's Model for example has made it abundantly clear that he has no regard whatsoever for human life, and claims that he would kill a man as easily as he would squash a gnat.

Of course Pickman's is a well-known bullshitter.  But I bet there are activists who are genuine hardmen, and so it surprises me that they don't go in for hardman tactics.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

shut up Phil, you honestly don't have much of a clue in this area


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Oh no, Ddraig's finally crawled over here. Thread's over then I guess.


----------



## existentialist (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I assume you don't have kids then?
> 
> Because, faced with the choice between the slightest chance of harm coming to their child and giving Ronald McDonald the wrong date for a demo, 100% of parents would choose the latter.


If that were actually true to the extent you're claiming, any parent would be completely vulnerable at any time to the kind of blackmail you're suggesting.

You're right that I am not a parent. However, I've known a few - I believe I also own a couple, somewhere - and I think I can say with some certainty that they usually don't turn into snivelling compliant wrecks at the first hint of a threat to their beloved offspring - quite the contrary, in fact.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> shut up Phil, you honestly don't have much of a clue in this area



Go away Ddraig, you sad prick.  No-one wants your crap on this thread.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

quoting yourself you weirdo narcissist? 
fuck off


----------



## existentialist (May 20, 2014)

I'm not that sure I want to put my crap on a thread where the OP is quite so unreasonably dismissive of other posters, either.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

existentialist said:


> If that were actually true to the extent you're claiming, any parent would be completely vulnerable at any time to the kind of blackmail you're suggesting.
> 
> You're right that I am not a parent. However, I've known a few - I believe I also own a couple, somewhere - and I think I can say with some certainty that they usually don't turn into snivelling compliant wrecks at the first hint of a threat to their beloved offspring - quite the contrary, in fact.



It depends how credible the threat is, obviously.

But yes, any parent at any time is indeed vulnerable to this kind of blackmail.  And to a lot of other things as well.  As Francis Bacon said, to have a child is to give a hostage to fortune.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> quoting yourself you weirdo narcissist?
> fuck off



Seriously Ddraig, we're having a decent, friendly conversation here.  You're not going to ruin it with your usual disruptive abuse.  Now fuck off.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I'm not that sure I want to put my crap on a thread where the OP is quite so unreasonably dismissive of other posters, either.



Unreasonably?  _Unreasonably?_  How am I supposed to respond to this wanker then?



ddraig said:


> shut up Phil, you honestly don't have much of a clue in this area



I don't know about you, but I tell wankers like him where to get off.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

usually don't bother with you sad tired shite so don't give it "usual" and use the line on me that you use on others constantly
you are a joke, goodbye


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> usually don't bother with you sad tired shite so don't give it "usual" and use the line on me that you use on others constantly
> you are a joke, goodbye



Leave the thread, Ddraig.  Now.  Go on, piss off, you're not wanted here.  And don't come back.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I've no doubt that many such groups include some genuine psychos who would be more than willing--Pickman's Model for example has made it abundantly clear that he has no regard whatsoever for human life, and claims that he would kill a man as easily as he would squash a gnat.
> 
> Of course Pickman's is a well-known bullshitter.  But I bet there are activists who are genuine hardmen, and so it surprises me that they don't go in for hardman tactics.


perhaps you could point to the post where i claim i would kill a man as easily as squash a gnat. 

or perhaps you could apologise for posting yet another lie.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Leave the thread, Ddraig.  Now.  Go on, piss off, you're not wanted here.  And don't come back.


do you want to play last word macho man?


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> do you want to play last word macho man?



Fuck off, you pathetic little tosser.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could point to the post where i claim i would kill a man as easily as squash a gnat.



Sure: 



Pickman's model said:


> yeh and there's to my mind only one entirely effective way to deal with a tout


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Fuck off, you pathetic little tosser.


awww  are you losing? again
nevermind
sure there is someone else you can attempt to browbeat with your self styled supposed superior intellect and debating skills


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That's really interesting, thanks for posting.
> 
> Sounds to me like the answer to my question, in this case at least, was that there were just too many undercovers involved.  One might (if one were a bastard) be able to intimidate one into switching sides, but not three.


Intimidate in what way, though? They tell their handler they've been rumbled and simply disappear. Far more elegant solution to feed a suspected agent false information. Best way to confirm your suspicion, too, I would think.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Sure:


where does that say "i would kill a man as easily as squash a gnat"?


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> awww  are you losing? again
> nevermind
> sure there is someone else you can attempt to browbeat with your self styled supposed superior intellect and debating skills



I'm not going to engage with this troll any more, and I suggest that others ignore him too.  All he does here is ramble from thread to thread, sowing disruption and ruining discussion.  What an inadequate wretch he is.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Intimidate in what way, though? They tell their handler they've been rumbled and simply disappear.



If they have three kids at school?  If their real-life identity is known?  If they believe the threat to their kids is credible?

They wouldn't disappear.  They'd co-operate.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not necessarily talking about coppers (although quite frankly the cops they send to spy on UK activists look to me like a bunch of untrained clowns who wouldn't stand up to 2 seconds of pressure).
> 
> But a corporate spy--they kind who work for McDonalds and Microsoft, those C21 guys etc--they don't have state protection, nor do they feel loyalty to their employers.  And I bet many of them hate what they do and would be quite happy to fight for the good guys for a while.



I suspect there's as many "true believers" in what they're doing as there are among the activists.  The right-wing has encouraged this mind-set that sees corporations and billionaires are the saviors of mankind.  The cops I know when I was working in a cop shop would have been quite happy to go spy on some union strikers or other activists.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> where does that say "i would kill a man as easily as squash a gnat"?



It says that you would kill a man you believed to be an informer.

That's plenty despicable enough.  The degree of difficulty you might experience in doing so does not concern me.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I suspect there's as many "true believers" in what they're doing as there are among the activists.  The right-wing has encouraged this mind-set that sees corporations and billionaires are the saviors of mankind.  The cops I know when I was working in a cop shop would have been quite happy to go spy on some union strikers or other activists.



Cops, sure.  Some 23 year-old poshboy who's just landed an exciting job working for McDonald's?  I really can't see them having much loyalty to their employer.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The trouble I suppose is how do you move from idle speculation to concrete evidence, without spreading nasty rumours about a potentially innocent person and without resorting to witch hunt tactics.



Surely that's obvious?

You give them a piece of false but valuable-sounding information and see if the cops act on it.  Do it twice to be sure.

Or am I missing something here?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Cops, sure.  Some 23 year-old poshboy who's just landed an exciting job working for McDonald's?  I really can't see them having much loyalty to their employer.



What evidence do you have that private security firms employee, often, such young people?

I would make an educated guess they're made up of ex plod and the like.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> What evidence do you have that private security firms employee, often, such young people?
> 
> I would make an educated guess they're made up of ex plod and the like.



You'd think so wouldn't you?  

But I've looked into this a bit, and it seems that they usually recruit straight from university.  And like most employers--but especially like spymasters--they go after Oxbridge graduates first.

Maybe it's to do with credibility--fresh-faced recent graduates being more likely to become real activists than grizzled 35 year-old ex-cops.

http://abc7chicago.com/archive/8418090/

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201302/george-chidi/confessions-of-a-corporate-spy.html

http://www.alternet.org/activism/corporate-espionage-against-progressive-nonprofits


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It says that you would kill a man you believed to be an informer.
> 
> That's plenty despicable enough.  The degree of difficulty you might experience in doing so does not concern me.


nowhere on this thread have i said "kill an informer". nowhere on this thread have i said "human life is meaningless". nowhere on this thread have i said "i would kill a man as easily as a gnat". nothing i have said on this thread implies any of these things. you're grasping at straws and they won't support your weight.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> nowhere on this thread have i said "kill an informer". nowhere on this thread have i said "human life is meaningless". nowhere on this thread have i said "i would kill a man as easily as a gnat". nothing i have said on this thread implies any of these things. you're grasping at straws and they won't support your weight.



That's really disingenuous, even by your standards.  What does this mean then?



Pickman's model said:


> yeh and there's to my mind only one entirely effective way to deal with a tout



Because I think it means that you believe informers should be killed.  And I believe that makes you a scumbag.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That's really disingenuous, even by your standards.  What does this mean then?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I think it means that you believe informers should be killed.  And I believe that makes you a scumbag.


why not google 'best way to destroy an enemy'

now fuck off.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You'd think so wouldn't you?
> 
> But I've looked into this a bit, and it seems that they usually recruit straight from university.  And like most employers--but especially like spymasters--they go after Oxbridge graduates first.
> 
> ...



This is all in the States. I'm talking about the UK.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> This is all in the States. I'm talking about the UK.



Here you go then.  As I say, I've been researching this, and the below seems to be typical:

"Five years ago, I helped to unmask a corporate spy. Climate activism was at its peak: the second ‘climate camp’ had spent a week at Heathrow the summer before, and many environmental groups had reported an upsurge in membership. Ken Tobias was one such new member. He came to his first Plane Stupid meeting at a pub in Russell Square in December 2007. *Posh, eager, with a Palestinian keffiyeh around his neck, Ken was fresh out of Oxford and very keen."*

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n01/katrina-forrester/i-want-you-to-know-i-know-who-you-are


----------



## likesfish (May 20, 2014)

The thing was most of the grounds stone and others were spying on were not a "who dares wins"style of hardcore anachrists intent on armed revolution now!which might have justified the efforts to break them.

But a bunch of protestors that picking up a copy of schnews hanging out here and goinging down the pub would get you all the intel you'd need
  How to inflitrate climate camp turn up with edible food your in.
 Once had some activist tell me that bucfp had to be seriously aware of state inflitrators at the time I was locking up the place  I was in full TA uniform
  It was offically not asubversive organisation never told anyone that they'd be heart broken


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> How to inflitrate climate camp turn up with edible food your in.



I literally did LOL at that.  And since I'm in a library it wasn't the smartest move.  Better get back to work for a bit...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Here you go then.  As I say, I've been researching this, and the below seems to be typical:
> 
> "Five years ago, I helped to unmask a corporate spy. Climate activism was at its peak: the second ‘climate camp’ had spent a week at Heathrow the summer before, and many environmental groups had reported an upsurge in membership. Ken Tobias was one such new member. He came to his first Plane Stupid meeting at a pub in Russell Square in December 2007. *Posh, eager, with a Palestinian keffiyeh around his neck, Ken was fresh out of Oxford and very keen."*
> 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n01/katrina-forrester/i-want-you-to-know-i-know-who-you-are


so don't trust people who've been to oxbridge or people who have stupid jobs (eg p/t climber) or people with no back story and no family or who won't allow you to see where they work


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so don't trust people who've been to oxbridge or people who have stupid jobs (eg p/t climber) or people with no back story and no family or who won't allow you to see where they work



That rules out 99% of current activists then.  

Nice one genius.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That rules out 99% of current activists then.
> 
> Nice one genius.


so no one wants to be your activist buddy? i'm not surprised.


----------



## Greebo (May 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so don't trust people who've been to oxbridge or people who have stupid jobs (eg p/t climber) or people with no back story and no family or who won't allow you to see where they work


Trust begets trust.  It wouldn't be impossible (or IMHO unreasonable) to sustain parallel identities on the internet, it's just that you'd better have a good reason to expect others to give all those checkable details to you while you (in general) give none of yours.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

Onket you haven't sunk that low that you'll agree with dwyer now have you?


----------



## Corax (May 20, 2014)

2006.
Tony Scott.
Denzel Washington.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Onket you haven't sunk that low that you'll agree with dwyer now have you?



Against you more like.

Now I thought you were fucking off?


----------



## Greebo (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Onket you haven't sunk that low that you'll agree with dwyer now have you?


Even a broken clock might show the right time once or twice in 24 hours.  Decontamination may be needed.


phildwyer said:


> <snip> Now I thought you were fucking off?


And I thought you were going to act nearer to your age instead of like a toddler.  Better go, case agreements to do etc.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And I thought you were going to act nearer to your age instead of like a toddler.  Better go, case agreements to do etc.



It's only _Ddraig _ffs.  It's come to a pretty pass when a man can't take the piss out of _Ddraig _when he feels the need.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Against you more like.
> 
> Now I thought you were fucking off?


i know he is against me but i didn't think he was sad enough to sully himself with you for that end! 
you can hope and think i am fucking off if it puffs your chest for a few seconds but i am not and your bully bluster is balls


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i know he is against me



_Everyone's _against you!  Just go away.  You're making it worse.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It's only _Ddraig _ffs.  It's come to a pretty pass when a man can't take the piss out of _Ddraig _when he feels the need.





phildwyer said:


> _Everyone's _against you!  Just go away.  You're making it worse.



look at it go through the motions!! look at it


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> _Everyone's _against you!  Just go away.  You're making it worse.


you get a like from snidey onket and you think you two count as everyone? 

e2a yes i know there are a few more before anyone gleefully jumps in to point that out!


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Anyway, let's leave the sad troll to burble away to himself for a while.  I've been meaning to respond to this:



likesfish said:


> The thing was most of the grounds stone and others were spying on were not a "who dares wins"style of hardcore anachrists intent on armed revolution now!which might have justified the efforts to break them.



That's true, and I assume that's one major reason why we find so few double agents in the activist scene.

Presumably however, the "hardcore anarchists intent on revolution" are being spied on as well.  Presumably much more than the cuddlies.  And yet they don't do this sort of thing either.  I reckon it just hasn't occurred to them, frankly.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> e2a yes i know there are a few more before anyone gleefully jumps in to point that out!



Don't be so silly.  No-one's going to "gleefully jump in" to point out how many people hate you.  No-one here is out to get you.  No-one even wants to see you carry on making a fool of yourself.  We're *all* on your side here.

But honestly Ddraig?  You should really leave this now.  You're only making matters worse.


----------



## Greebo (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It's only _Ddraig _ffs.  It's come to a pretty pass when a man can't take the piss out of _Ddraig _when he feels the need.


Sweetie, this is getting old.  It might almost (only almost) be funny, if not for you having the gall to call yourself a man.


phildwyer said:


> Anyway, let's leave the sad troll to burble away to himself for a while. <snip>


Talking about yourself?  Your wish is my command.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Greebo said:


> It might almost (only almost) be funny



It is funny, and you know it.

But let's not over-egg the pudding here.  Enough is enough.  I truly will stick to the topic from now on, and everyone else should do the same please.


----------



## Corax (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Don't be so silly.  No-one's going to "gleefully jump in" to point out how many people hate you.


No one's going to "gleefully jump in" because everyone's sick and tired of your repetitive schtick, and have no desire to waste their time engaging with it.


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Don't be so silly.  No-one's going to "gleefully jump in" to point out how many people hate you.  No-one here is out to get you.  No-one even wants to see you carry on making a fool of yourself.  We're *all* on your side here.
> 
> But honestly Ddraig?  You should really leave this now.  You're only making matters worse.


this is making me laugh and prolonging my work day!
even though you think you are very clever, most posters including me even can see where you are going with this thread.
obviously you used to waste a lot of time here as a sad lonely so called academic but don't you have some kind of life now?


----------



## ddraig (May 20, 2014)

and what Rax said much shorter and better!


----------



## Greebo (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> <snip> I truly will stick to the topic from now on, and everyone else should do the same please.


Please do.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> look at it go through the motions!! look at it


look at the shit phildwyer's posted on this thread: clear evidence he's been going through the motions.


----------



## Corax (May 20, 2014)

And now he's stalking other threads to get a dig in at posters elsewhere.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

Corax said:


> And now he's stalking other threads to get a dig in at posters elsewhere.



You're the only stalker here.  You haven't made a single constructive contribution to this thread.  Everything you've posted here has been disruption or abuse.

So why are you here?


----------



## likesfish (May 20, 2014)

I dont really think theres a bunch of serious anarchists intent on violent mayhem


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I dont really think theres a bunch of serious anarchists intent on violent mayhem



O rly?


----------



## likesfish (May 20, 2014)

Nice stickers and mottos
 Actually number of rich people turned into tasty snacks for the working class  zero

Not exactly a massive threat no matter how much noise they make.


----------



## Corax (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> So why are you here?


Because my handler expects me to keep up a presence on these boards.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I dont really think theres a bunch of serious anarchists intent on violent mayhem



I believe in very specific, carefully considered acts of violence as part of a clear strategy. If it's violent mayhem you're after then the current world order should provide you with more than enough.


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> At the time Kennedy was finally exposed I had taken an extended leave of absence from activism, not least because it had left me homeless and penniless, so I don't know the ins and outs of what happened or who was involved. But Mark Stone is still an open wound in these parts, you just don't mention the subject around those who were close to him, still less ask questions about it. Most if not all of them have effectively retired from the scene now anyway.


I did the same after Gleneagles. Lost my phone up there (suspect it ended up in one of the coppers pockets tbh), went straight from about 14 days in a field, the last 7 with constant helicopters overhead 24 hours a day to drive the length of the country to do 5 days at Glade festival, then eventually landed back in Newcastle to find my tenancy had run out, I was homeless and penniless, and had a week to pull a major sub contract work project together.

Was pretty fucked off with some stuff that went on up there as well, but in hindsight I probably should have talked it through with those involved afterwards rather than walking away, as it was a high stress, no sleep situation.


----------



## phildwyer (May 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Nice stickers and mottos
> Actually number of rich people turned into tasty snacks for the working class  zero
> 
> Not exactly a massive threat no matter how much noise they make.


 
Not at the moment.  But as history shows, that can change very, very quickly.

The people who run these groups (some of them anyway) know their Nechayev and Bakunin, their Lenin and sometimes even their Robespierre.  They know that capitalism is always subject to periodic crises, and that in such a crisis a tiny but highly-organized group of dedicated people stand a reasonable chance of seizing power, provided they're ruthless and remorseless enough.

It's happened before, many times.


----------



## Onket (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Onket you haven't sunk that low that you'll agree with dwyer now have you?


I agree with posts I agree with, doesn't matter who has written them.

You should try it. 

Do you ask everyone about posts that they've 'liked'? Or just me? Seems to be becoming a bit of a habit.


----------



## Onket (May 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you get a like from snidey onket


Can you manage to explain this yet? I know you couldn't manage it last time but you've had a bit longer to think about it now.....


----------



## Greebo (May 20, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> <snip> as history shows, that can change very, very quickly. <snip>


Argh! It's the historical dialectic.


----------



## Greebo (May 21, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not at the moment.  But as history shows, that can change very, very quickly.
> 
> The people who run these groups (some of them anyway) know their Nechayev and Bakunin, their Lenin and sometimes even their Robespierre.  They know that capitalism is always subject to periodic crises, and that in such a crisis a tiny but highly-organized group of dedicated people stand a reasonable chance of seizing power, provided they're ruthless and remorseless enough. <snip>


If, as you say, some of the people running groups of political activists know what has repeatedly happened in the past, they are also likely to know what happened to those people.  Some died for their cause, some died peacefully, others were killed by almost the same people whom they'd once inspired and led.  There's a very fine line between the latter two, once your cause has taken on a life of its own.

The other thing which may hold them back from seizing power, forcibly turning spies etc isn't so much niceness as the same refusal to compromise the core personal values which led them to become activists in the first place.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2014)

Greebo said:


> If, as you say, some of the people running groups of political activists know what has repeatedly happened in the past, they are also likely to know what happened to those people.  Some died for their cause, some died peacefully, others were killed by almost the same people whom they'd once inspired and led.  There's a very fine line between the latter two, once your cause has taken on a life of its own.



Of course.  Revolutions inevitably devour their children first.  And yes, all revolutionaries know that.  But they evidently  don't care.

Why they don't care is an interesting question.  Some of them are doubtless nutters or desperate types, tired of life and with nothing to lose.  Others possibly think that things might go differently next time.  Still others presumably see themselves as Stalin.  And there are also many genuine idealists, willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of humanity.



Greebo said:


> The other thing which may hold them back from seizing power, forcibly turning spies etc isn't so much niceness as the same refusal to compromise the core personal values which led them to become activists in the first place.



In some cases yes--the failures.  But those who _succeed _in leading a revolution are invariably psychopaths--Lenin, Hitler, Robespierre etc.  You pretty much have to be.


----------



## HST (May 21, 2014)

Hitler didn't lead a revolution. He gained power democratically then consolidated that power.
Lenin didn't lead a revolution.  He and the Bolsheviks seized control after the revolution by eliminating rival groups which were, admittedly, less ruthless and less tightly organised.
I've no problem with them being described as psychopaths.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2014)

HST said:


> Hitler didn't lead a revolution. He gained power democratically then consolidated that power.



Yes, and he consolidated it by killing, first of all, his oldest friends and political allies.  And then by killing all his enemies.  And then by forbidding any more elections.  So it wasn't exactly your conventional democratic election-based transfer of power.



HST said:


> Lenin didn't lead a revolution.  He and the Bolsheviks seized control after the revolution by eliminating rival groups which were, admittedly, less ruthless and less tightly organised.



Agreed.  Indeed it was only the ruthless and remorseless nature of the Bolsheviks that gave them the advantage over their many revolutionary rivals.



HST said:


> I've no problem with them being described as psychopaths.



If they weren't psychopaths, the word has no meaning.


----------



## likesfish (May 21, 2014)

There are violent people hanging round the activist scene but I doubt they are planning acts of violence which rather limits the usefulness of an agent.
 Stone and the ilk stopped no demos or did anthing useful apart from provide " intelligence" that could be achieved without all the tinker tailor spy bollocks

Dodgy behaviour and a massive waste of time and resources.


----------



## dylanredefined (May 21, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not at the moment.  But as history shows, that can change very, very quickly.
> 
> The people who run these groups (some of them anyway) know their Nechayev and Bakunin, their Lenin and sometimes even their Robespierre.  They know that capitalism is always subject to periodic crises, and that in such a crisis a tiny but highly-organized group of dedicated people stand a reasonable chance of seizing power, provided they're ruthless and remorseless enough.
> 
> It's happened before, many times.



  Do they know how to make a decent ied though? Been ready to seize the moment is not something anyone should worry about. Being willing to create the moment is a bit worrying. Being able,willing and have the means to create the crisis needs stamping on.


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2014)

likesfish said:


> There are violent people hanging round the activist scene but I doubt they are planning acts of violence which rather limits the usefulness of an agent.
> Stone and the ilk stopped no demos or did anthing useful apart from provide " intelligence" that could be achieved without all the tinker tailor spy bollocks
> 
> Dodgy behaviour and a massive waste of time and resources.



The state's never going to stop spying on activists though.  If nothing else it provides jobs for the boys.  And if they have embedded moles in activist organizations, as no doubt they have, they can activate them any time it seems appropriate, e.g. as _provocateurs _in time of crisis etc.

As for corporate spies, they will exist as long as anti-capitalists exist--which means as long as capitalism exists.


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Do they know how to make a decent ied though?



Some of them do.


----------



## dylanredefined (May 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Some of them do.



 And hopefully they have proper spooks watching them not some wannabe cop.


----------



## phildwyer (May 22, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> And hopefully they have proper spooks watching them not some wannabe cop.



No doubt about it.


----------

