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

[Fozzie Bear]

Needs to be 1970-2005 to match the timeframe put forward by Creedon (also SDS was wound up in 2008; the similar NPOIU was in place from 1999 and operating nationally until 2008/9 merger that bundled it into NDEU along with NETCU & NDET, before NDEU was brought into Met structure, redesignated NDEDIU and undercover unit hived off).

Started a new thread for this here:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/latest-operation-herne-report-3-into-undercover-policing-spying-on-justice-campaigns.325958/

Yeah I just edited that out. The other two still stand.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The Met regrets getting caught out like this "Enormously".

ffs just goes to show the contempt they hold us all in. When their behavior leads to a death, rather than do what they can to ensure it doesn't happen again it's always cover-up, smear, lie and now it seems snoop on the victim's families. Cunts.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The Met regrets getting caught out like this "Enormously".

ffs just goes to show the contempt they hold us all in. When their behavior leads to a death, rather than do what they can to ensure it doesn't happen again it's always cover-up, smear, lie and now it seems snoop on the victim's families. Cunts.

Of course they regret getting caught, they don't actually regret their despicable behaviour

 

[SpookyFrank]

Nice Freudian slip from Creedon here:

Asked if he was certain no spying took place, he said: "It would have been completely against what the SDS was there for - it was there to try and stop protest and try and make sure the capital was a safer place to live in."

Surely he meant facillitate protest?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Nice Freudian slip from Creedon here:



Surely he meant facillitate protest?

Nope, the SDS was there to stop protest.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Nope, the SDS was there to stop protest.

Well yeah that's pretty obvious, but how come they can say as much in public as if that's an OK thing for the police to be doing?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Well yeah that's pretty obvious, but how come they can say as much in public as if that's an OK thing for the police to be doing?

I know! Guess when you've fessed up to spying on the Lawrences admitting the filth are there to stop dissent is small beans.

Don't like this world very much anymore.

 

[DaveCinzano]

The BBC's Danny Shaw is reporting that the Met “agrees to reveal whether two men [PC Andrew James Boyling AKA ‘Jim Sutton’ and Insp Robert Lambert AKA ‘Bob Robinson’] did or did not have relationships with women while working as undercover police officers.”

Bit of a no-brainer seeing as Lambert sired a son and Boyling married an activist he had been targeting. Clearly the Met's legal eagles fancy themselves as a right bunch of Cnuts.

 

[Pickman's model]

The third Op Herne report - about spying on family & justice campaigns - was released by the Met and Derbyshire Constabulary this lunchtime:

http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application/pdf&blobheadervalue2=inline; filename="99/962/Operation Herne - July 2014 - SDS Reporting - Mentions of Sensitive Campaigns [PUBLIC].pdf"&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1283768671607&ssbinary=true
http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Doc...porting---Mentions-of-Sensitive-Campaigns.pdf

It's a corker - in that Creedon admits that 17 (or 18 - he's ambiguous) family/justice campaigns were spied on by SDS between 1970 and 2005. The only one which is mentioned by name is the Lawrence family, because that was detailed in the previous Herne report, which coincided with the explosive Ellison Review.

Creedon has said that the families have been contacted but that he won't say which families/campaigns were spied on, you know, ‘out of respect for privacy, etc’. The Guardian has already identified the families of Ricky Reel, Cherry Groce and Jean Charles De Menezes as having been approached.

So let's build up some lists:

Definites

• Cherry Groce (1985)
• Stephen Lawrence (1993)
• Ricky Reel (1997)
  
• Jean Charles De Menezes (2005)

Possibles

• Kevin Gately (1974)
• Blair Peach (1979)
• Colin Roach (1983)
  
• Cynthia Jarrett (1985)
• Patrick Quinn (1990)
  
• Rolan Adams (1991)
  
• Quddus Ali (1993)
• Brian Douglas (1995)
  
• Wayne Douglas (1995)
  
• Harry Stanley (1999)
• Azelle Rodney (2005)

wouldn't be surprised if there'd been police involvement with the diarmuid o'neill campaign. or joy gardner for that matter.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Danny Shaw tonight reporting that the Met has finally acknowledged that Bob Lambert and Jim Boyling were spycops who had sexual relationships with female targets.

Their line of defence on this - don't laugh - is that the relationships were... ‘Based on “mutual attraction & genuine personal feelings”’!

 

[DaveCinzano]

A pretty transparent holding action, really, seeing as there's what one might call something of a significant paper trail and forensic evidence linking both of them to the false identities Bob Robinson and Jim Sutton.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Fuller report in Graun:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...forced-to-name-undercover-officers?CMP=twt_gu

 

[SpookyFrank]

Will they still not even confirm Mark Kennedy was an undercover plod, despite the fact he's admitted as much himself?

 

[DaveCinzano]

Will they still not even confirm Mark Kennedy was an undercover plod, despite the fact he's admitted as much himself?

Lambert and Boyling were SDS (Metropolitan Police Special Branch), whereas Kennedy was seconded to NPOIU, a national unit set up through ACPO and later directed through NCDE. Kennedy has been avowed in numerous reports (eg HMIC, Operation Herne).

The ‘admission’ that Lambert and Boyling were undercover police officers is something of a rearguard holding action by the Met for the following reasons:

• Lambert and Boyling both had children with targets
• Lambert's post-SDS career (MCU, then academia) gave him a relatively high profile, and one in which his Special Branch days were acknowledged (if not the specifics)
• Boyling married the target with whom he had children
• Boyling was acknowledged to be facing disciplinary charges in relation to his conduct as an undercover officer

In both cases there is too much demonstrable evidence to show that ‘Robinson’ was Lambert, and that ‘Sutton’ was Boyling. Furthermore ‘Robinson’ and ‘Sutton’ have each been shown to be an undercover police officer by an overwhelming volume of circumstantial evidence, not limited to: the Debenham's ALF incendiary plot sting; the LU office occupation prosecution; Lambert's self-released post-exposure statement; Lambert's Channel 4 News interview with Andy Davies; Lambert's evidence to Mark Ellison QC; contextual comparison of Operation Herne reports 1, 2 & 3, and the Ellison Review; hearsay evidence from Boyling's (now former) wife; Lambert's 2014 article for Critical Studies on Terrorism; Boyling's disciplinary proceedings; Commissioner Hogan-Howe (who in his previous job at HMIC had even penned the original report into undercover policing units) naming Boyling as a Met officer at the time of his arrest under the ‘Sutton’ identity to the Metropolitan Police Authority; and so on.

Finally, Lambert was Boyling's senior and mentor in SDS. He was also known to be a visitor to the home of Boyling and his target-wife. Lambert and Boyling were then founder members of the Muslim Contact Unit. If one had to be acknowledged, then so did the other.

One may reasonably speculate that acknowledging both Lambert and Boyling were undercover police officers is a pragmatic and expedient tactic by the Met, designed to build something of a firewall around those officers it is unwilling to name as infiltrators - namely John Dines (‘Barker’) and Mark Jenner (‘Cassidy’).

To understand why Lambert and Boyling can be sacrificed, but why also Dines and Jenner must be protected, you must consider:

• The individuals, groups, movements and politics which Dines and Jenner targeted
• The possible criminal offences they may have committed whilst undercover, the issue of command and control at the time, and any ongoing legal liability this may expose the Met to
• The organisation(s) to which these two highly-trained and experienced undercover operatives may have taken their rather unusual skillsets to, having left SDS/Special Branch.

 

[DaveCinzano]

To add to the above, official sources have already released information confirming specific individuals infiltrated into political movements as having been undercover police officers - specific individuals about whom there is considerably less conclusive evidence, it should be noted, than, for example, Jenner and Dines.

Again, this would appear to indicate that there is something special about Jenner and/or Dines.

Now, even in an organisation such as the Met there will be sane minds who understand the ridiculousness of all the foot-dragging. So it may be not unreasonable to infer that the impetus for this foot-dragging is not entirely of the Met's own making, but carried out at the direction of another organisation, for reasons beyond those of embarrassment to a police force or the potential for legal liabilities for the actions of specific police officers during their undercover tours of duty within particular political groups.

 

[Pickman's model]

To add to the above, official sources have already released information confirming specific individuals infiltrated into political movements as having been undercover police officers - specific individuals about whom there is considerably less conclusive evidence, it should be noted, than, for example, Jenner and Dines.

Again, this would appear to indicate that there is something special about Jenner and/or Dines.

Now, even in an organisation such as the Met there will be sane minds who understand the ridiculousness of all the foot-dragging. So it may be not unreasonable to infer that the impetus for this foot-dragging is not entirely of the Met's own making, but carried out at the direction of another organisation, for reasons beyond those of embarrassment to a police force or the potential for legal liabilities for the actions of specific police officers during their undercover tours of duty within particular political groups.

i wouldn't be surprised if the met's lawyers were acting on a no-win no-fee arrangement

 

[DaveCinzano]

i wouldn't be surprised if the met's lawyers were acting on a no-win no-fee arrangement

If they were you'd think they'd be a bit better at this then

 

[Pickman's model]

If they were you'd think they'd be a bit better at this then

it what the police in the fairford case did, after at least 2006, and we all know how long that took to finish.

 

[DaveCinzano]

In case you hadn't seen it, here's the New Yorker piece which came out today.

You may be familiar with the basic elements of the story, but this is the first time some of the background details have been publicly aired. And some of them are gruesome.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/the-spy-who-loved-me-2

It tells the story of Jacqui (previously referred to as ‘Charlotte’), the woman who once upon a time fell in love with a dashing animal rights activist named ‘Bob Robinson’.

In reality, ‘Robinson’ was Robert Lambert, a career-long veteran of Special Branch, who in 1983 was sent deep undercover to infiltrate political groups on behalf of the secretive Special Demonstration Squad.

Almost immediately after being deployed on the ground, complete with the stolen identity of a dead child, Lambert sought out Jacqui at a protest, and began to woo her - which helped ease his way into animal rights groups that she was on the periphery of. Pretty soon they were an item, and by Christmas of 1984 Jacqui fell pregnant with Bob's son.

But in 1987 the relationship fell apart, as Bob became increasingly distant, argumentative, provocative. He began an 18 month relationship with another woman, ‘Karen’, who not part of any activist scene. In 1988, he disappeared completely from the lives of Jacqui, ‘Karen’ and all the people he had befriended during his adventure as a spy - ostensibly on the run in Spain to avoid the clutches of Special Branch, who had already arrested two other members of Bob's ALF incendiary bomb gang.

Between 1988 and late 2012, he made no attempt to remain in the life of his son. It was only when Jacqui realised that her long-disappeared ‘Bob Robinson’ was the same man as the former secret policeman Bob Lambert who had been accused of having set off a firebomb that gutted a department store whilst an undercover policeman, and tracked him down, that he showed any interest in his own progeny.

And that, in a nutshell, is the “genuine personal feelings” that the Met Police, recently forced to admit that Lambert was one of its spies, thinks drove Lambert to seek out an impressionable young activist, pester her into a relationship, impregnate her, emotionally bully her, dump her and then disappear from her life and the life of their son.

[Cross-posted]

 

[butchersapron]

So the CPS has decided there will be no charges for the undercover officers who had relationships with various women whilst undercover.

 

[Pickman's model]

So the CPS has decided there will be no charges for the undercover officers who had relationships with various women whilst undercover.

the state protects its own

 

[butchersapron]

Their statement:

The CPS received a file in relation to a number of police officers under Operation Aubusson, a subset of Operation Herne, which is an investigation into the activities of the Metropolitan Police Service’s Special Demonstration Squad. The evidence in this case relates to alleged sexual misconduct. In reviewing the case we have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to allow charges of rape, indecent assault, procuring a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretences, misconduct in public office and breaches of the Official Secrets Act.

Having carefully considered all the available evidence, provided at the end of a thorough investigation, we have determined that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for any offences against any of the officers. Investigators from Operation Aubusson have confirmed that no further lines of enquiry are available at this time.

 

[Pickman's model]

Their statement:

i'd have thought that misconduct in a public office would have done, if there'd been any backbone in the cps for such a prosecution.

not to say rape as consent obtained by deception can't (imo) be really considered consent. would any of these women have agreed to a intercourse knowing their partner was a police officer? the evidence suggests not.

 

[Sprocket.]

As the judge said to us in the dock;
''It is the duty of the court to protect police officers whilst upholding the law of the land.''
We were under the belief that the truth would set us free. Ah well every day is a school day.

 

[butchersapron]

i'd have thought that misconduct in a public office would have done, if there'd been any backbone in the cps for such a prosecution.

not to say rape as consent obtained by deception can't (imo) be really considered consent.

That option is still there - but i expect will never be exercised. This was i believe strictly concerning "case relates to alleged sexual misconduct".

 

[Pickman's model]

As the judge said to us in the dock;
''It is the duty of the court to protect police officers whilst upholding the law of the land.''
We were under the belief that the truth would set us free. Ah well every day is a school day.

daydream believer

 

[Pickman's model]

That option is still there - but i expect will never be exercised. This was i believe strictly concerning "case relates to alleged sexual misconduct".

i'd say living a lie and obtaining a sexual relationship as a central part of that lie is sexual misconduct.

but sadly not a lawyer

 

[laptop]

the state protects its own

OTOH, the civil action hinges "on the balance of probabilities"...

 

[DaveCinzano]

No doubt an entirely appropriate decision in which the available evidence was weighed up and considered soberly.

In situations like these it's probably very useful to have as Chief Inspector at HM CPS Inspectorate, which operates as an internal watchdog for the CPS, a man of the calibre of ex-Kent Police Chief Constable Michael Fuller. The Chief Inspector, as well as leading HMCPSI, also chairs the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group, where he ensures that “[the CPS] commitment to participating in cross-cutting joint inspections, including the treatment of young victims and witnesses and aspects of restorative justice” is maintained. So that's alright, then!

Certainly Fuller's rather underdocumented police career - modest bashfulness, one supposes - predisposes him to a fair amount of insight into the issue of long-term deployment of undercover officers into political groups, seeing as he himself spent not a few years in Special Branch, racked up several years' of undercover work himself, and was closely connected to the teflon cop-spook himself, John Grieve, with whom he established CO24.

And let us not underestimate his understanding, not just of the context and generalities of CHIS, but also the specifics: from 2002 until he left the Met (that is, a period in which ‘Rod Richardson’, Mark Kennedy, ‘Lynn Watson’, ‘Jason Bishop’, ‘Simon Welling’ and others were all active) he was its Director of Intelligence.

 

[DaveCinzano]

A couple of things to consider with this charging statement:

It specifically relates to SDS officers who had sexual relationships with women whilst undercover - such as the recently ‘acknowledged’ Bob Lambert and Jim Boyling, who each had children by targeted women. Lambert & Boyling both continued their Special Branch careers after their SDS deployments ended, and together founded the Muslim Contact Unit. Other SDS officers - though as yet unconfirmed by the Met, as though that matters - John Dines and Mark Jenner, both of whom went on to interesting new jobs. Then there is the whistleblower Peter Francis; onetime SDS chief Mike Ferguson; possibly former Special Branch bigwig Roger Pearce; ‘Officer 11’; Mike Chitty; and others.

As such the cases involving Mark Kennedy, ‘Lynn Watson’ and ‘Marco Jacobs’, who all slept with targets whilst on the job for NPOIU rather than SDS, are not involved.

Also, note this is a CPS charging decision, and will not affect the case(s) being brought by the targeted women (and one man).