# Police planting catapults on anarchists? I don't believe it.



## nick h. (Mar 29, 2009)

Rescued this entertaining text from the bin. It's a great story - if only I could believe it wasn't an urban myth. Surprisingly there are no photos, despite the whole thing being witnessed by "many independent photographers": 

"During the anarchist rally at Speakers Corner yesterday a man in black appeared suddenly and emptied a bin bag behind the stepladder and motored off quick. 

The bin bag contents seemed to be about seven or eight small packages tightly wrapped in bin bags. Someone took a look at one and revealed a catapault. They were quickly kicked away under some fencing constructed for maintenance works. 

About 20 minutes later from some distance away a copper climbed over the fencing and ‘found’ the catapaults. Alert to what was happening film maker Greg Hall climbed the stepladder and warned of the potential fit up. Needle to say he ws pulled by the cops on leaving the Park. Luckily many independent photographers had witnessed the whole thing and Greg was released after being searched. 

This was about as clumsy a stitch up as you could wish for. What more ‘finds’ await us in the week ahead?" 

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2009/03...ch-up-attempt/


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 29, 2009)

Twas ever thus.  There will always be stitch ups, and claims of stitch ups.  When both sides have everything to gain from allegations of unfair play, who can you believe.  Personally I veer towards Ian Bone, seeing as I have experienced directly and indirectly numerous occasions of outright lies from cops, but that's just me.  Others wouldn't believe the cops did anything wrong if they saw it with their own two eyes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2009)

Given that stitch ups and canteen-cooked stories happen all the time, I wouldn't put it past them.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Mar 29, 2009)

Police issue photofit






Daily Fail in moral outrage against perverse 'Beano' readership..


----------



## nick h. (Mar 29, 2009)

This is how conspiracy theories get started - the "I wouldn't put it past them" argument.  But this story just looks daft. Why plant incriminating evidence wrapped in plastic bags? If it doesn't have anarchists' fingerprints on it, what's the point? Where are the accounts of the many witnesses to this event? Where are the photos? I would SO love to be proved wrong on this - just show me a smidgen of evidence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 29, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Rescued this entertaining text from the bin. It's a great story - if only I could believe it wasn't an urban myth. Surprisingly there are no photos, despite the whole thing being witnessed by "many independent photographers":





nick h. said:


> Where are the accounts of the many witnesses to this event? Where are the photos?



Exactly what effort have you personally put into finding out whether this happened or not? 

Have you contacted Ian, or Greg? Have you asked around people who were at the anarchist rally? Have you waded through blogs and websites for reference to the mysterious parcels?

At the moment it appears that you are basing your opinion entirely on a single blog entry. Your opinion - that this seems to be 'an urban myth' - is no more credible than that of those who say 'I can well believe it'. 

We can all speculate on the whys and wherefores and I-wouldn't-trust-Bones and ACABs till the cows come home.

That a slew of evidence - photographic, corroborating witnesses etc - does not accompany the brief blog post made by Ian neither proves that it happened nor disproves it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2009)

Every single person i talked to after the Speakers Corner thing (about 20-30 people i would guess) witnessed this.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 29, 2009)

If they are going to present it to the press though why do they need to (badly) plant it? Why not go this is what we found and then present a selection of weapons?


----------



## tangentlama (Mar 29, 2009)

It could have been a sad media hack* planting catapults, and then informing the police - an easy manufacturing of the story they wanted to see in the run-up to this week's G20 demonstrations.




*as opposed to a glad media hack, who write balanced stories and have a more nuanced understandering the public mood


----------



## Fullyplumped (Mar 29, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Rescued this entertaining text from the bin. It's a great story - if only I could believe it wasn't an urban myth. Surprisingly there are no photos, despite the whole thing being witnessed by "many independent photographers":
> 
> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2009/03...ch-up-attempt/



If I was going to create a myth about police trying to play dirty by planting evidence, this is exactly where I'd do it and this is exactly how I'd go about it. 

I am casting no aspersions against Mr Bone. But _cooey bonio_ and all that.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

nick h. said:


> ...a man in black appeared suddenly and emptied a bin bag behind the stepladder and motored off quick...


Anyone got more details?

Doing this in full view of everyone sounds a bit amateurish.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 29, 2009)

I saw exactly what happened and it is as described.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Anyone got more details?
> 
> Doing this in full view of everyone sounds a bit amateurish.



Fit ups that have been exposed are usually head-shakingly poor. They rely on no witnesses and the courts tendency to believe the coppers.


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

nick h. said:


> This is how conspiracy theories get started - the "I wouldn't put it past them" argument.  But this story just looks daft.
> 
> A. Why plant incriminating evidence wrapped in plastic bags?
> 
> ...



A. Because dumping a load of catapults might be a bit more obvious than dropping a bag full of them and because it'll look like more like a weapons stash, which is handy when you can't easily plant them on individuals.

B. Because they're not trying to fit up an identified group of anarchists, they are trying to discredit a movement, put more "mainstream" folk off and create dissent within the movement by exacerbating existing black bloc/fluffy tensions. 

C. Give them a chance. BA's spoken to a fair few and he's no liar. No doubt the accounts will appear.

D. Because "independent photographers" refers to a bunch of people standing around with cameras. It'll take a while to get hold of their photos, if anyone thought to ask for their contact details. Again, give them a chance. Of course, we don't know if anyone got an unambiguous shot of the motorcycle rider at the very beginning before anyone knew anything was up ... no doubt photos of the rest of the incident will be interpreted to suit the viewers' prejudices.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 29, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Luckily many independent photographers had witnessed the whole thing and Greg was released after being searched.


Where's the link to their photos, and a report on an accredited news site? BBC, Guardian, something like that. 

The original link's gone dead BTW.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2009)

Link

which also contains a claim that:



> This explains a lot. The London top cop was on Radio 4’s Today earlier this week warning that they needed thousands of extra police at the marches because of “intelligence recieved” that “someone with a catapult” would strike at the protests.



Did anyone hear this?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 29, 2009)

Link


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

From the comments ..



> This explains a lot. The London top cop was on Radio 4’s Today earlier this week warning that they needed thousands of extra police at the marches because of “intelligence recieved” that “someone with a catapult” would strike at the protests.





If we can track down the Today programme in question, it's pretty much case closed. How stupid are they?


----------



## Azrael (Mar 29, 2009)

Sounds very dodgy if it's true. Has anyone approach the BBC or a newspaper with this? Have the relevant complaints been made to the police? I'm sure on of the cops on here would supply the procedure.


----------



## e19896 (Mar 29, 2009)

TopCat said:


> I saw exactly what happened and it is as described.



This comes from some well trusted people and i can to be frank beleave and understand why the scum would do this well done to all for not becomeing to this, shows how much we are towords a police state, when they need to act like this to discredit a group of anarchist, and all to often i disagre with them, but from what ive read by e mail and the blog, this is not made up propaganda..

Anarchist One Police Nill, now one is looking forword to next weeks events this could get intresting..


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Mar 29, 2009)

ymu said:


> From the comments ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



surely the cops wouldnt be so fcking stupid............   course they would. anyone got the day of that prog, you can prob get it online to listen again.

they are gonna be a tense lot on wed. good luck to everyone who is there.


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

A lot of giant cardboard catapults would be in order on Wednesday. Perhaps individually decorated.


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 29, 2009)

I found my hand in Johnny Binden's crotch once .... or twice. ...

http://www.iplayerconverter.co.uk/r/4/aod/default.aspx

Cntrl + F Today

next, next, next , next etc etc...you'll get there. 

I'd like to know too.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

It could have been anyone ranging from far-right, random nutter, sectarian-with-a-grudge, tabloid-type or whatever. Why would the police do it in such a crappy, obvious and cack-handed way, given that they routinely do *far* more sophisticated set-ups than this? They didn't even get any arrests or media coverage out of it ffs!


----------



## Raw SslaC (Mar 29, 2009)

e19896 said:


> This comes from some well trusted people and i can to be frank beleave and understand why the scum would do this well done to all for not becomeing to this, shows how much we are towords a police state, when they need to act like this to discredit a group of anarchist, and all to often i disagre with them, but from what ive read by e mail and the blog, this is not made up propaganda..
> 
> Anarchist One Police Nill, now one is looking forword to next weeks events this could get intresting..



The person who dumped the bag full of catapults had a copy of the guardian in his pocket, and was carrying a waitrose shopping bag - the suspicions is that it was The Middle Class wot done it again.


----------



## Geri (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> They didn't even get any arrests or media coverage out of it ffs!



They wouldn't have known that in advance, so that's irrelevant.


----------



## cesare (Mar 29, 2009)

Raw SslaC said:


> The person who dumped the bag full of catapults had a copy of the guardian in his pocket, and was carrying a waitrose shopping bag - the suspicions is that it was The Middle Class wot done it again.


----------



## e19896 (Mar 29, 2009)

Raw SslaC said:


> The person who dumped the bag full of catapults had a copy of the guardian in his pocket, and was carrying a waitrose shopping bag - the suspicions is that it was The Middle Class wot done it again.



What the Middle Class fiting themselevs up, well just gose to show why you can not trust them:


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> It could have been anyone ranging from far-right, random nutter, sectarian-with-a-grudge, tabloid-type or whatever.


Indeed it could. Which is why this mysterious "intelligence" about someone using a catapult is so incriminating. I mean, what are the odds? Senior cop says on national radio he thinks catapults will be used, dodgy geezer seen planting catapults by at least 30 witnesses, plod turn up 20 minutes later and find them straight away. 



_float_ said:


> Why would the police do it in such a crappy, obvious and cack-handed way, given that they routinely do *far* more sophisticated set-ups than this? They didn't even get any arrests or media coverage out of it ffs!


Are you kidding? 

An acquaintance got fitted up for the poll tax riots. They had film of him and everything. Unfortunately for them, he was under general anaesthetic in another city at the time.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

Geri said:


> They wouldn't have known that in advance, so that's irrelevant.


Anyone would know in advance that they wouldn't get any arrests out of doing it like that. You also have to wonder why there has been zero media coverage of this story, since the supposed 'police operation' went as planned - ie weapons planted (albeit in front of everyone) then 'discovered'.

This could all be the work of one sad twat with a motobike, a mobile phone and a chip on their shoulder about protestors or 'the far left' - hence it being so shit and achieving no arrests or media coverage.

People knew the location beforehand so a 'professional' set-up could have put things in place beforehand. A proper set-up wouldn't wrap up weapons, would probably throw them into bushes to make it look like people trying to get rid of evidence, would include reports of police or businesses being attacked, would probably use convincing provocateurs who would at least throw a couple of bottles etc, would make sure at least some media were on hand at the right time - all things that have happened before. Even sending just one policeman to find the bag doesn't sound like the usual MO, typically they'd steam in tooled up and mob-handed (which would inevitably provoke the desired reaction). 

This just looks like an amateur 'plot' not a professional one.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

ymu said:


> Indeed it could. Which is why this mysterious "intelligence" about someone using a catapult is so incriminating. I mean, what are the odds? Senior cop says on national radio he thinks catapults will be used, dodgy geezer seen planting catapults by at least 30 witnesses, plod turn up 20 minutes later and find them straight away.


So the sad twat calls the police during the week.

The sad twat (or a mate nearby) calls the police again as soon as he's dumped the bag.

What's so mysterious? 

It *could* be police, it could be some BNP-type, it could be a random twat(s).

Maybe someone will recognise the person in question at some point.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

ymu said:


> An acquaintance got fitted up for the poll tax riots. They had film of him and everything. Unfortunately for them, he was under general anaesthetic in another city at the time.


The police have got a lot better at doing covert set-ups in the last 19 years, since 1990.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> This just looks like an amateur 'plot' not a professional one.



youve got an excellent point, the only thing i would add is that the polis dont always do what would appear to be professional. im sure as i and others on the board have witnessed, they also do amateur.

i wouldnt rule em out just because it appears amateur.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

The police shouldn't be ruled out. My comments are just in counter-point to people claiming it definitely *was* the police. It wouldn't be surprising if BNP-types wanted to get 'pay-back' for various things and they also have an agenda in wanting to make 'the left' look bad.

If the person who did this pops up somewhere in the future and is recognised it might give a clue as to who they are. Even something like the license plate on their motorbike might help 'out' them.


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Anyone would know in advance that they wouldn't get any arrests out of doing it like that. You also have to wonder why there has been zero media coverage of this story, since the supposed 'police operation' went as planned - ie weapons planted (albeit in front of everyone) then 'discovered'.


They didn't want arrests - we already covered that ^^.  Why would they go to the press with it when they were exposed by the onlookers as they were retrieving the catapults? They're stupid, but not _that_ stupid. Really, they're not. 



_float_ said:


> People knew the location beforehand so a 'professional' set-up could have put things in place beforehand.


Planting them before the anarchists arrive to set up their rally in the same area would be a bit risky. The foliage around Speaker's Corner isn't that luscious, and the poor stooge cop has got to be able to find the things without stretching his limited acting talents.



_float_ said:


> A proper set-up wouldn't wrap up weapons, would probably throw them into bushes to make it look like people trying to get rid of evidence,


They were trying to make it look like a weapons cache. Why would someone be getting rid of them when there was no incident where they had been used? Wouldn't be very convincing now, would it?




_float_ said:


> would include reports of police or businesses being attacked, would probably use convincing provocateurs who would at least throw a couple of bottles etc, would make sure at least some media were on hand at the right time - all things that have happened before.


Some Canadian provocateurs got caught out a couple of years ago, and the cops ended up having to admit it after persistent denials. It's a risky strategy. Especially when they only want to discredit the movement and skew the headlines. This way they get patted on the back for preventing "trouble",



_float_ said:


> Even sending just one policeman to find the bag doesn't sound like the usual MO, typically they'd steam in tooled up and mob-handed (which would inevitably provoke the desired reaction).


Why would they send them in mob-handed to "stumble upon" a bag of catapults. Were they self-aiming or something? 



_float_ said:


> This just looks like an amateur 'plot' not a professional one.


On that, we can agree.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> This just looks like an amateur 'plot' not a professional one.



smear jobs are inevitably tawdry and obvious when exposed.

When they aren't exposed...


----------



## _float_ (Mar 29, 2009)

@ymu

You have no evidence that it was the police. I have no evidence that it was a lone-bnp-nutter.

I am putting forward a different view-point based on what I know about the Met police MO for covert set-ups etc over the years.

To me this doesn't look like a police set-up, it looks like a lone-bnp-type-nutter trying to do a set-up, and the police following it up but not taking any further action.

I am willing to keep an open mind about it. Are you?


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

@ _float_

If you can make some points that aren't ludicrous, you might convince me that you have an open mind. I don't. I'm happy with 30 witnesses, a great deal of circumstantial evidence and a lot of form.

You have to make up a right-wing nutter who not only wanted to discredit the demo independently of the police, they had the foresight to ring them up in advance with the "intelligence". And then the senior copper who was on R4 decided that this random phone call was worth mentioning on air. And then, despite successfully foiling this dastardly plot, there is no media reporting of it, even though it was important enough to scare people with on national radio's flagship news programme a few days earlier.

I don't have an open mind on this one because I don't have an empty mind. Just call me Occam.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 29, 2009)

I've searched for blogs etc. mentioning catapults at speakers corner but found nothing. Somebody at Indymedia has posted a question about it but nobody's answered. I've asked for evidence on Ian Bone's blog - no response. 

If the man in black wasn't a policeman then it's a non-story, as interesting as a playground squabble. 

If anyone has evidence he was a policeman it's a fantastic story which we would have seen in today's papers. But it's not going to happen, is it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2009)

Photos would be good.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Mar 29, 2009)

_float_ said:


> The police have got a lot better at doing covert set-ups in the last 19 years, since 1990.


You mean like when they retrospectively tried to set up Jean Charles de Menezes as someone who was wearing a suspiciously heavy jacket that might have been covering explosives, and who ran and jumped over security barriers, and who failed to stop when they announced themselves to be police and warned him they'd fire?  You mean that kind of better?


----------



## rover07 (Mar 29, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Photos would be good.



Yes but who has a camera these days?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2009)

rover07 said:


> Yes but who has a camera these days?



Well quite. I lean towards believing the story, but I'd really like to see it made watertight by some nice clear photos. 

Of course, this is probably an excellent example to demonstrate why it's now illegal to photograph policemen.


----------



## ymu (Mar 29, 2009)

Bernie, so cynical? I can hardly believe it of you.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2009)

I'm not convinced yet tbh.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2009)

ymu said:


> Indeed it could. Which is why this mysterious "intelligence" about someone using a catapult is so incriminating. I mean, what are the odds? Senior cop says on national radio he thinks catapults will be used, dodgy geezer seen planting catapults by at least 30 witnesses, plod turn up 20 minutes later and find them straight away.



i wonder if it had anything to do with this tongue in cheek post following on from anarchists have a tank:
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/anarchists-have-tank/


> Still, so long as they havnt got wind of the catapult - best to keep that one under wraps.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2009)

ymu said:


> Bernie, so cynical? I can hardly believe it of you.



I always prefer hard evidence. Photographs seem very possible in this case ...


----------



## _float_ (Mar 30, 2009)

ymu said:


> If you can make some points that aren't ludicrous, you might convince me that you have an open mind. I don't. I'm happy with 30 witnesses, a great deal of circumstantial evidence and a lot of form.


I am using all the same witnesses, circumstantial evidence and form as you. All of this leads me to a different conclusion (or theory) than yours.

Phoning the police beforehand isn't difficult in the slightest and doesn't contradict my theory. The senior copper mentioning an allegation doesn't contradict my theory. The fact there was no police statement or media reporting of it supports my theory, not yours.

In fact you haven't pointed to anything that contradicts my theory. I do however admit that there isn't any hard evidence that contradicts your 'police did it' theory either - hence me having an open mind and you not having an open mind and resorting to insulting me instead.

Whoever dumped the stuff there was a cunt. I am not trying to defend them. I am simply pointing out that there is more than one set of cunts around who may be motivated to something like this. I bet plenty of BNP sympathisers swore they'd get "revenge" after their mailing-list fiasco last year for example. That the way it was done was half-baked. That the police regularly do better set-ups than that: for example why have someone so blaently walk in and walk out again? Why not have someone there from the start with a rucksack and a coat over it, who wanders off after a while, or even stays around, chatting into a mobile phone hands-free? Then if anyone (except for the police) goes over and starts opening it they tell them to piss off. Why not start a ruck? Why not use it as an excuse to immediately search everyone there?

Anyway, I have offered an alternative theory. It is up to people to read yours, read mine and see which one they find the most likely. Maybe more evidence and witnesses will sway things one way or another? I am keeping an open mind and will read what the people who were there have to say about it over the next few days.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 30, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> You mean like when they retrospectively tried to set up Jean Charles de Menezes as someone who was wearing a suspiciously heavy jacket that might have been covering explosives, and who ran and jumped over security barriers, and who failed to stop when they announced themselves to be police and warned him they'd fire?  You mean that kind of better?


No I'm not thinking about that example. Is that the best set-up you can think of?

There have been lots of examples where the police have more-or-less engineered confrontations at demos over the years.

There are plenty of examples of the police arresting people on trumped-up charges or using the slightest pretext for kettling, charging, stopping, searching and generally screwing people around.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 30, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Of course, this is probably an excellent example to demonstrate why it's now illegal to photograph policemen.


I think Labour's legislative incontinence demonstrates that just as well. 

While the law doesn't actually ban photographing police, it could be read that way: until it's repealed, hopefully the courts will read _mens rea_ into it as they have similar legislation.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 30, 2009)

found this comment posted on Smokedout's link on the other thread
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/images-from-put-people-first/

another theory - 



			
				commenter on The Void's blog on the march said:
			
		

> I see the conspiraloons are lapping up the ole catapult malarky. Which i understand was a situationist stunt, vive l’anarchie.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Mar 30, 2009)

Why not just leave the catapults in the bin ? Or am I missing something ?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2009)

Here's what Greg H has to say - inlc



> As the footage shows I was stood basically in front of the step ladder making sure I could get a good angle on every speaker, the following events I am about to describe I did not get on camera as my focus was to ensure filming the speakers as opposed to documenting the activities of those around me. About 20minutes (During parts 4/5) into the rally a man dressed all in black swooped up to the step ladder, keeping very low to the ground, tipped the contents of his bag out and exited in an incredible speed. Left on the floor was roughly six small black packages. This suspicious behaviour instantly caught the attention of myself and others around me. I lightly stepped on one of the packages, could feel it was hard and gently flicked it to someone stood about a metre away. All the time still filming the speaker! The person next to me used his foot to open the package, aware not to put fingerprints on it, and a catapult was revealed. Everyone was very conscious that these weapons had no place at a public rally and were kicked by various people, though not myself, under the metal fence that can be seen in the back of all my footage into a fenced off mounded area of waste ground and out of harms way. One speaker, a ginger gentleman sporting a special brew can, warns the crowd intially of the catapult saga as he had an arguement with a cameraman who was going to keep one! Thankfully they were convinced to throw it also under the fence.



More

Trying to find footage of the speaker who made ref to the events _at the time
_


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2009)

Stop and Search docket:


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Here's what Greg H has to say - inlc
> 
> More
> 
> ...


Lordy. I wish that website learnt the wonder of paragraphs.

Skim reading through that block of text, it seems that there really is nothing linking the catapults to the police, yes?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2009)

Let's establish that it happened first - something that many people were doubting yesterday (there's audio and video footage making refs to catapults now availible from various resources).


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> Why not just leave the catapults in the bin ? Or am I missing something ?



There was no bin nearby


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2009)

it's all like an anarchist miss marple episode


----------



## winjer (Mar 30, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Of course, this is probably an excellent example to demonstrate why *it's now illegal to photograph policemen*.


Except it isn't.


----------



## winjer (Mar 30, 2009)

_float_ said:


> It *could* be police, it could be some BNP-type, it could be a random twat(s).


Could be someone who wanted to distribute stuff getting cold feet and dumping it, rather than any plot.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

Here's my take on it. Full of assumptions...just my interpretation of the evidence:  

- it did happen
- the man in black was so comically obvious that he can't have been engaged in a serious plot. Just some joker who enjoys winding up conspiraloons and is right now eagerly scanning anarchist blogs hoping to read about his prank
- the officers who searched Greg H were making a reasonable investigation into the discovery of offensive weapons at a gathering of anarchists. Perhaps a little OTT, but that's to be expected in the age of FIT teams
- the officer who found the catapults wasn't part of any plot. Yes, somebody told him where to find the catapults..could have been the prankster or a plain clothes officer in the crowd.  

The whole thing is such a joke that not even many anarchists are taking it seriously. Otherwise we'd have read a lot more about it.  The people who think the man in black was a state-sponsored agent provocateur are probably the same people who think that 9/11 and 7/7 were also state-sponsored plots.


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

Nothing in the news yet. They found an "arms cache" right next to the anarchist rally, and haven't run off to tell the press yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2009)

You've changed your story from it didn't happen to it did happen nick. Why?


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

I mean, all this build up and they haven't told anyone about foiling this dastardly plot by those anarchists that they kept telling us would turn violent and we should really stay away because it was all going to get really nasty and now they've been proved right but they're not telling anyone?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You've changed your story from it didn't happen to it did happen nick. Why?



Mainly because of this: http://brokebutmakingfilms.blogspot.com/  It's not anonymous, it's from a film director with a reputation to protect, so I don't think he would invent the whole thing. I'm not convinced by his interpretation of events, but he seems a credible witness. What do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2009)

What do i think about the stuff that i posted earlier in defence of the argument that it happened?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 30, 2009)

ymu said:


> I mean, all this build up and they haven't told anyone about foiling this dastardly plot by those anarchists that they kept telling us would turn violent and we should really stay away because it was all going to get really nasty and now they've been proved right but they're not telling anyone?



The 'terror plot' arrests in Plymouth from Friday to Sunday (but only announced now, after the union-dominated demo of the weekend but before the week's direct action events) should do nicely on that front.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

Another thing the conspiraloons could throw into the mix is the army practising its VIP evacuation procedures because of an Al Qaeda dirty bomb threat to the G20 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=284344&highlight=bikini  I'm surprised no one's mentioned it yet. Searching for a suitcase bomb could be a great excuse for the police to take some very extreme measures against anarchists.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> What do i think about the stuff that i posted earlier in defence of the argument that it happened?



OK, no need to ask what you think! But I hope you can understand that I don't believe anything that anonymous people here or on blogs claim unless it's verifiable. And I have tried to verify it by reading everything I can find on the web.


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> OK, no need to ask what you think! But I hope you can understand that I don't believe anything that anonymous people here or on blogs claim unless it's verifiable. And I have tried to verify it by reading everything I can find on the web.



So what do you think of the media aspects of the events so far?

Exhibit A: The massive build-up in the press, predicting violence and mayhem. Note the large number of slightly bemused posts on these boards, whole threads on media/government propaganda ... we know the government and police have been working the press into a frenzy about this for weeks.

Exhibit B: Specific mention of a catapult plot by senior plod on Today, as part of the hysterical media build-up

Exhibit C: Nada, zip, zilch when the catapults are found. Super-sexy media story, makes the hysteria seem justified seeing as nothing kicked off.

Circumstantial, I know. But come on? How gullible are you?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> OK, no need to ask what you think! But I hope you can understand that I don't believe anything that anonymous people here or on blogs claim unless it's verifiable. And I have tried to verify it by reading everything I can find on the web.



I suggested you actually ask Ian or Greg about what happened, at the beginning of this thread. 

If the extent of your informed opinion is passively grazing off the internet, then how are you any better informed than anyone else?

You are not Rumpole, and this is not the Old Bailey.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm not trying to be an expert on anarchists or riots or the Police state. It would be a complete waste of time for me to ask Ian or Greg about it. I'm just   tyre-kicking at urban like everyone else. I found something which i thought was interesting and rescued it. Why didn't you? You knew about it before I did - but you just left it in the bin.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Searching for a suitcase bomb could be a great excuse for the police to take some very extreme measures against anarchists.


Like what exactly?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

ymu said:


> So what do you think of the media aspects of the events so far?



Not really interested - media budgets are so tight that there isn't the headcount to investigate anything properly. Things are rushed off in half an afternoon when they need to be researched for a couple of days. So I don't trust many media outlets to get it right.


----------



## STFC (Mar 30, 2009)

winjer said:


> Could be someone who wanted to distribute stuff getting cold feet and dumping it, rather than any plot.



That sounds more likely than some shadowy plot.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

editor said:


> Like what exactly?



For example, Belfast/Gaza-style checkpoints preventing people from gathering for demos.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> For example, Belfast/Gaza-style checkpoints preventing people from gathering for demos.


Armed checkpoints seem a little over-dramatic, no?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> For example, Belfast/Gaza-style checkpoints preventing people from gathering for demos.


You approve of this?  Or what?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

I think if you were Jacqui Smith you could justify checkpoints on security grounds by saying that we have received a warning about an Al Qaeda dirty bomb at the G20. (Which may be true.) You could say it was for the safety of the demonstrators.  

But I don't think she would do that because the economic damage would be too severe - as you say checkpoints are too dramatic - people would go panic buying for bottled water and tins of beans and then stay at home. Tourism would stop, more retailers would go bust..


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> OK, no need to ask what you think! But I hope you can understand that I don't believe anything that anonymous people here or on blogs claim unless it's verifiable. *And I have tried to verify it by reading everything I can find on the web.*



Sure.



nick h. said:


> Not really interested - media budgets are so tight that there isn't the headcount to investigate anything properly. Things are rushed off in half an afternoon when they need to be researched for a couple of days. So I don't trust many media outlets to get it right.



But, it's really easy to read between the lines of a media report. When they quote Ed Milliband, you know that that's roughly what Ed Milliband said. When they interview senior plod on the radio, you can hear exactly what they're saying. 

So, once more. Don't you think it's interesting that we had all these senior politicians and senior plod predicting mayhem and catapults, but when the offending items are found and the plot successfully foiled, there is no mention?

None of these facts are mediated by journalists, save for editorial decisions on what is and is not broadcast. You've heard the politicians, you've heard plod. You know the volume of reporting, you know it's all a lot of scare tactics and red bikinis. You can google as easily as I can for mainstream reports of the discovery and know that there appear to be none.

So, what do you think? You've picked every other source apart, admitted that there is irrefutable evidence that these events occurred, but you won't cross-examine the case against the police. Why is that?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> You approve of this?  Or what?



That's a rather odd conclusion. What I would like is a harmonious world where there is no reason for anarchists to go on demos or for Al Qaeda to kill anyone. I would like everywhere to be like Norway - have you been there? Very small gulf between rich and poor, state-funded everything...just one big contented bunch of middle income people who don't obsess about displays of wealth.  Very little crime, leave your doors unlocked, people are friendly and helpful to each other. Utopia. Except for the winter.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> What I would like is a harmonious world where there is no reason for anarchists to go on demos or for Al Qaeda to kill anyone.


Do you see an equivalence there?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

ymu said:


> you won't cross-examine the case against the police. Why is that?



Because it's so flimsy and I'm playing devil's advocate. 

I was hoping the thread would be about the facts of the catapult-planting. Perhaps you want to know my motives/politics, so here they are. Skip to the next post if this is irrelevant.

I started the thread because the I thought the thing I found in the bin was hilarious. And I was dreaming that the plot might be for real and that I could help strengthen the case against the police by flushing out some decent evidence against them. So far it's been a failure, but I live in hope.

I think the Police are mostly bully boys on a power trip. They probably always will be - it's hard to assemble a decent police force from the sort of people who want to join it. The Blair govt gave them way too much power with badly drafted laws. History shows that when the police are given too much power it's hardly ever taken away from them. But we must try! 

Evidence of agent provocateur activities with the police dishing out deadly weapons could help to start a public debate. I think their enforcement of all the new anti-terror and antisocial behaviour laws and all the surveillance they're doing has conditioned them into controlling political dissent. Which is not what we pay them for. But even the decent officers think that doing their job means using (and stretching) all the powers they're given, so they end up constructing a police state. 

Now for the media: most journalists are frightened of redundancy. And making a big mistake in a controversial story kills their careers. So they're not going to do this story unless the evidence against the police gets much, much, much stronger. 

If the evidence was there, a Fleet St paper or major news programme would run it.  Yes, the media are tied to the establishment, TPTB, whatever you want to call them. But that never stops them savaging inept or criminal coppers. Miscarriages of justice often make the front page, which means the readers like them too. There's no good reason not to print them IF you can stand them up.  

I'm an occasional freelance writer of health features. I wouldn't try to do this story myself - I don't have the contacts or the track record. Anyway, if I did want to it would be pretty dumb to ask everyone to put the evidence on this board. I'd send PMs and make phone calls. But maybe a staff journalist somewhere will read this thread and have a dig.  

I suppose I feel quite strongly about all this because people I know in Brixton have been bullied by the police. So have I, come to think of it. They just charge around spouting nonsense much of the time. So we all need to rein them in a bit. If I do get some good evidence I'll do my best to put it to good use by giving it to a friend in news.

I seem to have rambled on for so long that I've put myself to sleep. But I still think this catapult-planting thing is nonsense.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you see an equivalence there?



If you mean "do I think anarchists on demos are equivalent to Al Qaeda killing people", er, no.  I have even been on demos myself. In fact I organised one in front of the House of Commons.


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Because it's so flimsy and I'm playing devil's advocate.
> 
> I was hoping the thread would be about the facts of the catapult-planting. Perhaps you want to know my motives/politics, so here they are. Skip to the next post if this is irrelevant.
> 
> ...



So the Home Office and Met are busy sending out press releases prior to the event, but suddenly go silent when they have a documented haul of catapults? Or journalists don't run with official press releases unless they can independently verify the story? 

Weasel.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 30, 2009)

You're not making sense. How can it be a story if there's no way to link the catapults to the police or the anarchists and all the witnesses' descriptions of the man in black sound like a performance artist? And you seriously want anyone to write that he was an agent of the State? Get real.   

You posted your reply so fast that you didn't read my post, let alone think about it.  If you want to play Punch and Judy, find someone else. If you want an intelligent discussion, engage your brain and post something with merit.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I would like everywhere to be like Norway - have you been there? Very small gulf between rich and poor, state-funded everything...just one big contented bunch of middle income people who don't obsess about displays of wealth.  Very little crime, leave your doors unlocked, people are friendly and helpful to each other. Utopia.


Except that it has a suicide rate far, far higher than the UK, so perhaps not everyone is as chuffed with life as you make out. Heard any good Norwegian bands recently?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2009)

Keep it on track eh?


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I think if you were Jacqui Smith you could justify checkpoints on security grounds by saying that we have received a warning about an Al Qaeda dirty bomb at the G20. (Which may be true.) You could say it was for the safety of the demonstrators.


Oh, and the public would be sure to accept that as an excuse for Belfast/Gaza-style checkpoints. Not.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Keep it on track eh?


He brought up Norway as some sort of Utopia for the people. I corrected him. Onwards!


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

nick h. said:


> You're not making sense. How can it be a story if there's no way to link the catapults to the police or the anarchists and all the witnesses' descriptions of the man in black sound like a performance artist? And you seriously want anyone to write that he was an agent of the State? Get real.
> 
> You posted your reply so fast that you didn't read my post, let alone think about it.  If you want to play Punch and Judy, find someone else. If you want an intelligent discussion, engage your brain and post something with merit.


Huh? Catapults found at anarchist rally wouldn't make a nice press release for the police, in the atmosphere they were whipping up for G20? Get real.

I did read your post in full. It only takes a minute. Are you a very slow reader? It rambles on about how a journalist wouldn't touch the Ian Bone story without verification of what happened. It had precisely fuck all to do with the reasons as to why the police haven't press-released it to all and sundry.

You're not keeping an open mind, you're weaseling.



editor said:


> Except that it has a suicide rate far, far higher than the UK, so perhaps not everyone is as chuffed with life as you make out. Heard any good Norwegian bands recently?


That's because they get 24 hour darkness over winter. And it's waaaaay off- topic.


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2009)

Here you go Nick. Lengthy round-up of the day's events from the Daily Mail. No trouble at all, one arrest for drunk and disorderly. Yet the police found a stash of catapults. We know they did - we've seen the stop'n'search docket. Don't you find that a little bit odd?


----------



## chico enrico (Mar 31, 2009)

editor said:


> Except that it has a suicide rate far, far higher than the UK, so perhaps not everyone is as chuffed with life as you make out. Heard any good Norwegian bands recently?



unfortunately that link doesn't work, but i'd have thought it was fairly well  known that such statistics are a tad disingenuous. scandanavian countries are predominantly secular thus there isn't the great taboo about suicide being recorded as the cause of death. in catholic countries thus is regarded as sin and this a cause of shame for families so generally 'death by misadventure/accidental death' will be recorded. furthermore, it is suggested that in fact catholic countries have higher suicide rates than secular as in such societies child-pregnancy/abusive marriages are common reasons for suicide but are seldom reported as such. 

sure there will be numerous reports on this disparity online and things may have changed . i'm only basing the above on my university sociology dissertation on the subject and emile durkheim's studies so things could have changed over past 15 years or so.


----------



## _float_ (Mar 31, 2009)

.


----------



## albionism (Mar 31, 2009)

Are there any other anarchists other than "Class Struggle" anarchists about?
Whatever happened to Black flags?...


----------



## rekil (Mar 31, 2009)

editor said:


> Heard any good Norwegian bands recently?


Ranheim aren't bad. Shellac/Minutemen/Jesus Lizard type stuff.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Mar 31, 2009)

Am I the only one who keeps reading the thread title and thinking of Victor Meldrew?


----------



## nick h. (Mar 31, 2009)

ymu said:


> Here you go Nick. Lengthy round-up of the day's events from the Daily Mail. No trouble at all, one arrest for drunk and disorderly. Yet the police found a stash of catapults. We know they did - we've seen the stop'n'search docket. Don't you find that a little bit odd?



No.

Please explain - I'm trying to follow your argument but you've lost me again. You think the Police should have told the press that the catapults were found? Or that the Police did tell them, but the press are so pro-anarchist that they suppressed the story? 

Tell you what, write the opening paragraph of the story they should have run.  You could even phone a newspaper yourself and give them the story - ever think of that? 

"Weaseling" also mystifies me. Please spell it out. What responsibility am I ducking? If anyone's weaseling it's anarchists who bleat about a police plot against them and make no effort to get justice. Perhaps they think that the mark of a good anarchist is doing nothing.


----------



## ymu (Mar 31, 2009)

nick h. said:


> You think the Police should have told the press that the catapults were found?


I think it's vanishingly unlikely that they would not have, given their statements to the press in the run-up to Saturday and tomorrow.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. Interesting agenda you have there though.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 31, 2009)

I give up. You're just trolling now.


----------



## ymu (Mar 31, 2009)

Yeah, sure.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 31, 2009)

seems a rather pathetic sting.
 we found a cache of black widows 
"WHAT THE PINKO SCUM HAVE POISONOUS SPIDERS THE BARSTARDS"
 er no sir there catapults
 what kiddys toys get obama ought of here we'll cover him 
 could'nt they stretch to some crossbows 
  yes I know a catapuult with ball bearings is not harmless it just ins'nt going to impress anybody in the mnedia you can buy them in pound shops ffs

(not that I did as that would be sad and not a tall adult)


----------



## Stoat Boy (Mar 31, 2009)

Luckily the pea-shooters escaped the beady eyes of the Peelers.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Mar 31, 2009)

It's not really a news story without pics.
Or eye witnesses.
Or a charge sheet.
Is it?


----------



## ymu (Mar 31, 2009)

It is if the Metropolitan Police press release it. They could have supplied pics and everything. The thing is, they didn't. They found some catapults at an anarchist rally and didn't tell the Daily Mail. 

It's most out of character, surely?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

In light of this report in the Times, I am going to summarise the catapult story and send it to Kit Malthouse. Unless those directly involved would prefer to do it themselves, in which case let me know. Are there any objections to me sending a .txt copy of the thread, or would people prefer that I cut, paste and anonymise the relevant eye-witness bits?



> Kit Malthouse, deputy chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: “We have asked the Met for a thorough briefing session. We want to review and understand why they employed those tactics.”
> 
> *Mr Malthouse, who is also London’s Deputy Mayor with responsibility for policing, said that members would also require a full explanation of the intelligence material which convinced police that anarchist groups were planning violence in the City.
> *
> He added: “We need to understand the intelligence picture and decide whether the police response on the day was proportionate.”


----------



## smokedout (Apr 11, 2009)

ymu said:


> In light of this report in the Times, I am going to summarise the catapult story and send it to Kit Malthouse. Unless those directly involved would prefer to do it themselves, in which case let me know. Are there any objections to me sending a .txt copy of the thread, or would people prefer that I cut, paste and anonymise the relevant eye-witness bits?



i wouldnt expect much back



> Cityboy Kim Malthouse has been brought in to oversee the police. Malthouse has extensive experience in this are having led a noble (and yet failed) campaign to ban prostitutes from adverstising in phone boxes.
> 
> Not only that but he spearheaded a campaign to have beggars locked up and make grand claims that under whilst heading the Social Services department at Westminster Council he halved the number of rough sleepers in the borough.
> 
> ...



http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/boris-meet-the-team/

quoting myself i know, bit rude, just trying to point that malthouse is a tory tawt


----------



## nick h. (Apr 11, 2009)

ymu said:


> Are there any objections to me sending a .txt copy of the thread



No objections from me! Fill yer boots.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2009)

ymu said:


> In light of this report in the Times, I am going to summarise the catapult story and send it to Kit Malthouse. Unless those directly involved would prefer to do it themselves, in which case let me know. Are there any objections to me sending a .txt copy of the thread, or would people prefer that I cut, paste and anonymise the relevant eye-witness bits?



Don't put my name in at all please.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Cool, thanks. I'll summarise the other sources rather than use the thread, butchers.

smokedout - Malthouse being a Tory twat is an advantage - we've got a Tory City Hall fighting with a Labour government for control over the Met. The MPA, headed by Johnson and Malthouse, are saying they suspect bogus police intelligence in the run up to G20, so it seems like a good time to bring this to their attention. There'd have been no point before, but now there just might be.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 11, 2009)

I suspect it's a newspaper job by the ---- and such like I wonder if the editorial were pressurise by Chairmen of the Brown and co to do this? I seen the video clip of this but you don't see it as the cameras are looking at the people making speeches. The Catapults where "dropped" in front of them and the people who were there saw what was happening and kicked it with their feet careful not to uses their hands to look inside the bag. They then kicked it under a fence and then told the police about it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Yeah, right. It was a media stunt that never got reported.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 11, 2009)

It's just as convincing as your theory. 

I'm sure the receipt of your intelligence will be a career high for Mr Malthouse.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

OK, draft submissio .pdf.

Input welcome. I've asked greg to get back to me with his blessing so won't be sending it for a while.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

ymu said:


> Yeah, right. It was a media stunt that never got reported.


A police stunt that led to no arrests and no press release?


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

winjer said:


> A police stunt that led to no arrests and no press release?


Exactly.

There's audio of people announcing the planting of the catapults, and for all the police observers know, audio and/or video of the whole thing, including the announcement that the police had now found the planted catapults and were about to attack the rally. They got rumbled, so they abandoned the plan with a quick stop and search and no further action.

Why else would there be no media briefing about this? It was a successful day. No violence. One arrest. Why wouldn't the police want to take some credit for that?


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

But why wouldn't the police want to capitalise on their discovery/plant, to give them more cover for their plan for April 1st?


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

Because they got rumbled - loudly and publicly at the rally. They knew there'd be plenty of witnesses to the planting and probably video evidence should they get the media interested in the story and someone chose to dispute it. And they were right. No media have picked up on the Ian Bone blog, but they'd be all over it if the police had press-released the original set-up.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

Someone dropped catapults, the WAG speaker mentioned it, the police searched him. That's the all the facts, isn't it?

What are you suggesting was the police plan?


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

Someone dropped catapults in front of many witnesses.
Someone gets on stage to make sure everyone knows, and the group agrees to kick them under the fence.
30 minutes later, copper wanders over and finds catapults. Starts consulting with other officers nearby.
Greg Hall gets on stage to say the police are about to try and stitch up the rally. Gets stopped and searched on the way out.

The police plan was to find catapults at an anarchist rally. If someone got their fingerprints on them whilst unwrapping them, bonus - but just finding several "high-powered catapults" at an anarchist rally would have been a dream for their media build-up to G20 - justifying the hysteria up to that time, and pre-justifying their plans for violence on the Wednesday.

Why on earth would the police not brief the media about this find? It's indisputable that they made it.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

Yes we know all that, now where's the part when the police decide not to brief the media?


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

Have you seen it reported anywhere outside of Indymedia and anarchist blogs? Google says not. You think the Mail would have decided that an arms cache found at an anarchist rally wasn't worth reporting?


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

Yes I know, that's my point. It's not very convincing evidence of a police set-up.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

The police found several "high-powered catapults" (according to the stop'n'search docket) at an anarchist rally and didn't tell the media. And you don't think that's weird? What other explanation is there?


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

Of course I think that's weird, but I don't think it point to a police plant, it point away from it.

The other explanation's that come to mind are (1) Someone else planted the catapults in the hope the police would create a photo opportunity and (2) Someone brought the catapults to the demo planning to distribute them and got cold feet, so dumped them.

(2) Seems most likely.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

But what possible reason would there be for the police not to brief the media if someone else had planted them? They wanted to protect the Daily Mail? The plotter got cold feet so it's best just to forget it ever happened and all go for a nice cup of tea. 

They found weapons at an anarchist rally at the most-hyped up protest in years. And didn't tell the media. Any explanation has to account for the latter.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2009)

ymu said:


> OK, draft submissio .pdf.
> 
> Input welcome. I've asked greg to get back to me with his blessing so won't be sending it for a while.


Sent, with Greg's blessing. Link has updated to final version.


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2009)

Well, I just got this from the Green Party (I copied the e-mail to Jenny Jones). The reference to John Brake may be to do with this? Tom Brake in the article, John Brake below - I'll check if they're the same person.

Problem is, he's got me confused with Greg and wants me to talk to the press if they're interested - but I wasn't there, so there's no point. I've left a warning for Greg on his blog. butchers - I don't suppose you know of any witnesses who might be willing to talk to the mainstream media if needed?




> Hi ymu
> 
> I work for Jenny Jones at the London assembly green group. Jenny did write to the commissioner about the use of Agent Provocateurs (see below) and we will press them for a reply. I hope you don't mind, but we have sent your e-mail onto a couple of journalists, but taken off your contact details. If they do express any interest, can I pass them onto you? I just read your blog and I do think that you should contact John Brake MP with your report. Jenny will persue the Met Police for a full investigation into the allegations.
> 
> ...


----------



## two sheds (May 11, 2009)

also relevant? 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9114448&postcount=2625


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2009)

Yes - that's the incident I think he's referring to when he suggests we contact MP John Brake.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2009)

I can ask, but i seriously doubt anyone would.


----------



## Boycey (May 12, 2009)

nick h. said:


> If it doesn't have anarchists' fingerprints on it, what's the point?



what do anarchist fingerprints look like? do they have 'A's in circles on? that would be fucking 

this thread has reminded me how fucking dangerous i used to be with my black widow. can you still get them?


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I can ask, but i seriously doubt anyone would.


I've already told them that. Problem is, they've dropped Greg in it by sending the blog link to journalists without warning. If Greg's happy to talk to them, it'll be OK. Otherwise, other people being willing step in might be handy.


----------



## tar1984 (May 12, 2009)

Boycey said:


> this thread has reminded me how fucking dangerous i used to be with my black widow. can you still get them?



I don't know but those things were the shizzle.


----------



## The39thStep (May 12, 2009)

ymu said:


> Well, I just got this from the Green Party (I copied the e-mail to Jenny Jones). The reference to John Brake may be to do with this? Tom Brake in the article, John Brake below - I'll check if they're the same person.
> 
> Problem is, he's got me confused with Greg and wants me to talk to the press if they're interested - but I wasn't there, so there's no point. I've left a warning for Greg on his blog. butchers - I don't suppose you know of any witnesses who might be willing to talk to the mainstream media if needed?



What police force would admit to using this tactic. Undercover, yes , surveillance yes, forward intelligence units yes but have you used agent provocateurs - er no.

Anyway the annual  meet up has gone this year. look forward to next years set play.


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2009)

The Quebec police were forced to admit to it fairly recently when enough evidence was presented. If you give up before you've started, how you ever gonna get 'em?



> *Quebec police admit agents posed as protesters
> *
> MONTREAL–With the proof caught on video, Quebec provincial police were forced to admit yesterday that three undercover agents were playing the part of protesters at this week's international summit in Montebello, Que.
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2009)

OK, I sent the document to Tom Brake, the Lib Dem MP who witnessed police agent provocateurs in action at the G20 protests, has collected witness statements from people he met there, and just happens to be the shadow home affairs minister. He's giving evidence to the select committee shortly.

He's not had a chance to get back to me (even just to point and laugh) as I only sent it this evening, but I feel honour bound to mention that I am already mildly impressed. I was really tired when I was trying to get an email contact for him late last night, forgot about firstname.surname@parliament.uk and got frustrated when writetothem.com demanded a constituency email and so (apparently) did his website. I gave up and fired off a grumpy e-mail to his website's info@ email address demanding that it be made easier to make contact about his national portfolio. o)

I got this at 6.44am today.


> ymu,
> I am not sure which website you were trying to use.  I am not aware of any websites that won't let people email me if they are not constituents.  Which were you trying to use?
> Regards
> Tom Brake



I know little of his politics, and I have no idea what his expense claims were, and let us not forget, he is a politician. But that's not bad, IMO.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2009)

Not quite as speedy this time, but just got this:



> ymu
> 
> Thank you for your email and the attachments.
> 
> ...


----------

