Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

No. So, what does 'peaceful protest movement' mean? Do you actually mean non-violent? Is that how they would have described themselves ideologically or strategically (because that wasn't the case for many of them), or are you just describing them as that for some other reason?

And, as well as that being not true for some of the groups infiltrated, it does tend to suggest that it might be OK for the cops to do it to groups that were violent or whose actions resulted in some violence. Classic 'good' protester, 'bad' protester rubbish.

One of the depressing things for me about this whole saga is the amount of 'radicals' who seems to have got a bit confused about the role of the cops and their infiltration and have often ended up towing some odd liberal-type line about how it was a subversion of democracy and just not needed as all the groups were really well-meaning and lovely actually...

It's more that those who were 'radicals' in the 80s and 90s have moved on and some of them are quite respectable these days. Hence the tendency to view their youthful escapades as somehow being kind of a lobbying tactic within the framework of a liberal democracy.

There are those who are keen to get themselves in the paper and are quite enjoying the media attention - they're more than happy to play along with Guardian's line.

+
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
There are those who are keen to get themselves in the paper and are quite enjoying the media attention - they're more than happy to play along with Guardian's line.

For a few people (none of the women involved though) I do think the attention and re-inforcing of their feeling of self importance has been a factor. And I guess it is much easier to toe the liberal line rather than than slightly harder to be publically honest about radical one. But not surprisingly that also does chime with the actual politics of some people.
 
Fucking car drivers eh? Some of em have a bloated view of their own importance. Bit of a party on a motorway for the afternoon becomes bringing the Nation to a standstill
 
Interesting:

The Metropolitan Police Service is carrying out a re-investigation into the planting of an incendiary device in a department store in July 1987.

On Saturday, 11 July 1987 an incendiary device was planted in Debenhams in Harrow, believed to be linked to an anti-fur campaign.

A team is now pursuing a number of lines of enquiry which were identified following a thematic review of the original investigation, by the then Bomb Squad. This will include exploiting potential advances in DNA techniques, new information that has been established by Operation Herne and claims made under parliamentary privilege by an MP in 2012.

Naturally His Bobness will be bursting at the seams to give any help he can.

Re-investigation into the planting of incendiary device
 
Interesting:



Naturally His Bobness will be bursting at the seams to give any help he can.

Re-investigation into the planting of incendiary device
The Associated Press
July 12, 1987, Sunday, AM cycle
Animal Rights Group Claims Responsibility For Three Store Fires

SECTION: International News

LENGTH: 245 words

DATELINE: LONDON



An animal rights group claimed responsibility for planting firebombs which damaged three department stores of the Debenhams chain Sunday, saying it was to protest the sale of fur coats.

The group, the Animal Liberation Front, said the attacks were part of an "economic sabotage" campaign against the chain.

There were no casualties.
The worst fire, in Luton, part of London's commuter belt, raged out of control for nearly five hours and heavily damaged three floors, police said.

Police said the blaze was regarded as highly suspicious, though a search found no trace of incendiary devices.

The London Fire Brigade said firebombs went off at stores in the London suburbs of Harrow and Romford, causing a small fires at each store.

A second firebomb was found and defused at each store.

In telephone calls to the British Broadcasting Corp., the Independent Radio Network and the domestic news agency Press Association, the Animal Liberation Front said the devices were "a form of economic sabotage against stores which sell fur coats in the West End (of London) and the rest of the country."

Debenhams has been a target of firebomb and other attacks by the animal rights group for more than three years. A company spokesman said the fur trade "forms only a small part of the business."

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals condemned the attacks, saying its own campaign against killing animals for their fur could be jeopardized.
 
The Associated Press
July 12, 1987, Sunday, AM cycle
Animal Rights Group Claims Responsibility For Three Store Fires

SECTION: International News

LENGTH: 245 words

DATELINE: LONDON



An animal rights group claimed responsibility for planting firebombs which damaged three department stores of the Debenhams chain Sunday, saying it was to protest the sale of fur coats.

The group, the Animal Liberation Front, said the attacks were part of an "economic sabotage" campaign against the chain.

There were no casualties.
The worst fire, in Luton, part of London's commuter belt, raged out of control for nearly five hours and heavily damaged three floors, police said.

Police said the blaze was regarded as highly suspicious, though a search found no trace of incendiary devices.

The London Fire Brigade said firebombs went off at stores in the London suburbs of Harrow and Romford, causing a small fires at each store.

A second firebomb was found and defused at each store.

In telephone calls to the British Broadcasting Corp., the Independent Radio Network and the domestic news agency Press Association, the Animal Liberation Front said the devices were "a form of economic sabotage against stores which sell fur coats in the West End (of London) and the rest of the country."

Debenhams has been a target of firebomb and other attacks by the animal rights group for more than three years. A company spokesman said the fur trade "forms only a small part of the business."

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals condemned the attacks, saying its own campaign against killing animals for their fur could be jeopardized.
Was anyone ever banged-up for it?
 
Many many convictions have now been declared unsafe and overturned as a result of undercover police involvement in protest movements.

Charges brought against police, undercovers or handlers, for perverting the course of justice? Nil :hmm:
 
I guess there was some warning when some ACPO-type said "I would rather be aware of what's happening before an offence is committed. Some will say we are going too far. I would rather we kept our ear to the ground."

Logical next step is to commit the offences, then arrest everyone else as accessory.
 
An animal rights group claimed responsibility for planting firebombs which damaged three department stores of the Debenhams chain Sunday, saying it was to protest the sale of fur coats.

They (or a similar group) did a similar thing to Dingles (part of the House of Fraser) in Plymouth in 1988.
 
Ah, Good ol'Alaric.

It would be a real shame if his professional activities had been discreetly monitored for, I don't know, getting on for five years because it was so obvious he was a wrong'un, yet too hubristic to effectively cover his tracks, as that might prove massively embarassing for a self-described security guru :facepalm::thumbs::beer::oldthumbsup:
 
Back
Top Bottom