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

[moon23]

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

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

 

[Pickman's model]

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

that'll learn you

 

[moon23]

that'll learn you

Yes not to sit down.

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

In return we think they're cunts.

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

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

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

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

In return we think they're cunts.

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

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

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

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

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

 

[Streathamite]

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LiamO]

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

Who is Irish then?

AKA?

The tout?

db?

 

[SpookyFrank]

But they are not allowed to "beat us senseless without fear of getting in trouble for it". They mainly have ONLY the same rights to use force as anyone else: in self-defence or defence of another; to prevent crime or to make a lawful arrest.

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

* whoosh *

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

 

[Fruitloop]

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

 

[LiamO]

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

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

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

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

(And the amount of criticism he got, and the extent to which his proclamations were ignored, within his own force is testament to the fact that police officers do not blindly hate the people the Chief tells them to hate!)

 

[detective-boy]

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

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

 

[SpookyFrank]

Usually the prevention of crime.

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

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

(And the amount of criticism he got, and the extent to which his proclamations were ignored, within his own force is testament to the fact that police officers do not blindly hate the people the Chief tells them to hate!)

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

 

[revlon]

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

praise the lord!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Who is Irish then?

AKA?

The tout?

db?

His surname is Kennedy!

 

[krtek a houby]

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

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

Sounds like the Inspector in The Borribles books...

 

[revlon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

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

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

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

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

really?