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

[frogwoman]

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

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

 

[frogwoman]

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

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

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

 

[free spirit]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Proper Tidy]

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

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

 

[butchersapron]

Hand gestures and fake scouse accents.

 

[free spirit]

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

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[Blagsta]

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

Are you accusing db of lying?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Are you accusing db of lying?

No. Complete naivety, perhaps.

 

[Blagsta]

No. Complete naivety, perhaps.

He would never knowingly lie of course.

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

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

 

[DrRingDing]

He would never knowingly lie of course.

Or at least he couldn't recall lying.

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[Blagsta]

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

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

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

What did the wombles do?

 

[frogwoman]

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

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


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

 

[Proper Tidy]

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

You stated that:

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[butchersapron]

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

Why not?

 

[frogwoman]

What did the wombles do?

wore scary clothes possibly.

 

[frogwoman]

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

So this isnt covered under the freedom of information act?

 

[audiotech]

What did the wombles do?

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

 

[Pickman's model]

wore scary clothes possibly.

went to dublin

 

[free spirit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[detective-boy]

So this isnt covered under the freedom of information act?

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

 

[free spirit]

What did the wombles do?

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

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

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

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

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

 

[frogwoman]

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

why, though?

 

[detective-boy]

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

From stuff that is in the public domain.

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

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