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

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[paolo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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

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

 

[paolo]

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

You're massively out of context on this JC.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

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

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're massively out of context on this JC.

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

 

[paolo]

There's also a (d).

Operational convenience, for want of a better phrase.

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

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

 

[TopCat]

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

Like the killer of Mr Tomlinson?

 

[Citizen66]

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

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

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

 

[Blagsta]

the bbc runs on the stuff as do west end theatres

 

[Citizen66]

Where are the raids?

 

[spartacus mills]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

Simplistic bollocks.

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

 

[Pickman's model]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

Us respectable taxpayers should be told.

ermm, which disrespectable taxpayers did you have in mind

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

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

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

why would they infiltrate movements many of them support already?

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

 

[Pickman's model]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

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

ah yes, right, ooo-kay

 

[detective-boy]

Don't get me started on that.

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

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

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

Like the killer of Mr Tomlinson?

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

 

[TopCat]

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

Where are the raids?

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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