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

[SpookyFrank]

Huh? that isn't what the people infiltrated in this case did. I know, because I know one of them.

I know quite a few of them. Not one of them would hurt a fly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's no hypocrisy here, jerB.

 

[Proper Tidy]

If this fellow had infiltrated a group of nonces, then?

Nonces are clearly a threat to people (ie children), you fool.

 

[krtek a houby]

That could be justified imo. The nonces would, by definition, be nasty people deserving of betrayal.

Exactly. Nasty people. Perhaps it was decided somewhere along the line that the people he infiltrated were nasty types?

 

[detective-boy]

... if they are no trying to blow people up ...

There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Exactly. Nasty people. Perhaps it was decided somewhere along the line that the people he infiltrated were nasty types?

You're clutching at straws here.

 

[Proper Tidy]

There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...

I know, I used poetic license.

 

[krtek a houby]

You're clutching at straws here.

Straw men

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's not a "refusal". It's pointing out that we have already done this. And that you don't acknowledge the answer I give and you won't this time either ... so it's a total waste of time.

I can't remember exactly but I assume you would argue that it is justifable to open skulls in defence of private property. The day I acknowledge that argument as valid will be the day hell freezes over.

 

[detective-boy]

Exactly. Nasty people. Perhaps it was decided somewhere along the line that the people he infiltrated were nasty types?

The point is that in this particular instance the posters sympathise with the group infiltrated. Whereas other people may not. Whilst the police would apply a consistent, objective approach to the infiltration of any group - namely are there significant grounds for believing that they may be involved with significant criminal offending - everyone else simply applies a subjective approach, namely either (a) "I like them therefore anything the police do is wrong" or (b) "I don't like them so the police can never do enough. Fuck them".

 

[rekil]

There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...

Is hitting someone with a baton and shoving them to the pavement one of them?

 

[frogwoman]

We had a case last year of an article in the Observer with a snout 'revealing all' about his time undercover in Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE) and Militant. The article was a bit silly really, trying to make out it was like going underground with the RAF, when everybody knows Militant are not that sort of group politically, and have never pissed about with individual direct action or squadism, but that is by the by. Everybody I know who knew this snout back in the early 90's says that he was always encouraging, essentially, squadism; to go out bashing racists & homophobes instead of building mass campaigns against them, this sort of thing. Agitating.

So, what would be your legal view of that? Is it unacceptable for police offices to attempt to create trouble, rather than just attempting to prevent it?

what a productive use of time and energy

 

[detective-boy]

I can't remember exactly but I assume you would argue that it is justifable to open skulls in defence of private property. The day I acknowledge that argument as valid will be the day hell freezes over.

Seeing as we live in a democracy which has decided that private property is lawful, yes. My individual view is irrelevant if I choose to live in a society which sets it's rules by majority view.

 

[SpookyFrank]

There's lots of things other than blowing people up that can cause death, serious physical harm, massive financial loss, etc. ...

Have you ever watched someone you love struggling to recover from a serious head injury? I suspect if you had then you'd think a little longer about making apologies for those who smash people around the head as punishment for some misdemeanor they or someone nearby might possibly cause at a later date.

 

[DotCommunist]

what a productive use of time and energy

Militant should have gone all RAF though- add a bit of Paul Smith and polo-neck t's to the baader-mienhoff euro chic of berets and that

 

[frogwoman]

And the members of militant who were infiltrated - as well as these anarchists - they were going to contribute to "massive financial ruin" wer they? If they are looking for groups that cause massive financial ruin, why dont they infiltrate a Bank?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Yes. Really. As you know perfectly well the use of force in this particular case has been judged to be unlawful. The reason that there has not been a conviction is because of evidential difficulties in relation to manslaughter and as a result of procedural fuck-up in relation to common assault, NOT because of the police being above the law. If that had been the case there wouldn't have been an investigation and there wouldn't have been a report characterising the use of force as unlawful.

Your habit (and the habit of many others) in pulling out Ian Tomlinson / Jean Charles de Menezes / Harry Stanley as if they somehow prove anything is pathetic (and extremely annoying). Each case had it's own particular circumstances and they "prove" absolutely nothing in terms of general principles.

I beg to differ. They appear to provide strong, if not incontrovertible, evidence that the police regularly kill innocent people and nothing happens as a result. You can point at false walls between the various actors involved, the lack of culpability with regards to the police being properly held to account and so on but I would suggest to you that the amount of circumstantial evidence in the lack of action in the cases you highlight as being pretty strong indeed.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Militant should have gone all RAF though- add a bit of Paul Smith and polo-neck t's to the baader-mienhoff euro chic of berets and that

We still can, DC, we still can

 

[AKA pseudonym]

er... lee clegg and ian thain were both convicted of murder.

Perversely welcomed back into the army after both serving less than 4 years... Clegg was eventually acquited of the murder of Karen O'Reilly

(apols for disrail)

 

[SpookyFrank]

Seeing as we live in a democracy which has decided that private property is lawful, yes. My individual view is irrelevant if I choose to live in a society which sets it's rules by majority view.

If my knowledge of political history serves we had private property long before we had democracy. The latter has never been allowed to challenge the supremacy of the former. But I'm not interested in the law at this point, I'm concerned with what is morally justified. Violence against people is always worse than crimes against property, wealth, social status or no claims bonus.

Your precious democracy has also, lest we forget, decided to frown upon the following:
-corporal punishment
-collective punishment
-punishment without due legal process

Ah, I hear you cry, but it's not punishment it's a preventative measure. Well if you take that strand of logic to its conclusion then we'd better start smothering newborn babies at birth lest they should steal a kitkat from the corner shop later in life.

 

[*Miss Daisy*]

just a quicky - I was on the wrong side of the law for a long time and even tho nowadays I am a productive member of society and respect the fact that law enforcement is needed (ya dont say..)
But i witnessed on many occasion how 'gun hoe' the police are - after all, they are people with emotions and I have seen them full of adrenalin acting like they are in a rugby game or something dragging a man through a smashed car window by his ears/hair whilst they'd cuffed him already and letting him land on the road like a dead weight then kick him whist down, whilst his 5 year old is in the back seat screaming - he got charged with a motoring offence
Point being that they are people at the end of the day and not some supreme beings...

 

[detective-boy]

... but I would suggest to you that the amount of circumstantial evidence in the lack of action in the cases you highlight as being pretty strong indeed.

And I would say that that is bollocks.

 

[detective-boy]

But i witnessed on many occasion how 'gun hoe' the police are - after all, they are people with emotions and I have seen them full of adrenalin acting like they are in a rugby game or something dragging a man through a smashed car window by his ears/hair whilst they'd cuffed him already and letting him land on the road like a dead weight then kick him whist down, whilst his 5 year old is in the back seat screaming - he got charged with a motoring offence

No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen. I have criticised them on many occasions. But they are NOT the norm. (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)

 

[Proper Tidy]

No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen. I have criticised them on many occasions. But they are NOT the norm. (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)

Well, it happens to some a lot more than others, doesn't it? Posh accent never hurts, things like that.

 

[krtek a houby]

Is hitting someone with a baton and shoving them to the pavement one of them?

I have been shoved around by the police on several marches and rallies - and they were complete tossers for it but I wouldn't say they are all violent types. I would certainly hope so...

 

[detective-boy]

... things like that.

More usually things like failing to stop, trying to run away, being aggressive, violent and abusive ...

(Some of which I suspect *Miss Daisy* either omitted from her story or which had happened before she started to observe the incident ...)

 

[SpookyFrank]

No-one is saying incidents like that don't happen. I have criticised them on many occasions. But they are NOT the norm. (Please list these "many" occasions for us if you would seek to convince us otherwise, and then list all the times you have seen the police doing things without going all gung-ho ...)

You are quite right for once. Coppers getting the red mist is not the norm. I've seen people beaten, left on the tarmac without medical attention and then denied access to hospital treatment by entirely calm and composed police officers. Everyone can lose their rag sometimes, but it takes a special kind of bastard to calmly wait for half an hour to see if he has permission from higher up to let a man with a broken leg (which his fellow officers had broken) get into the waiting ambulance less than 50 yards away.

 

[*Miss Daisy*]

I didn't omit I just didn't divulge - he was a known drug user/criminal, had lots of history with the police but had actually pulled over when the police ordered him too (no resistance) - their heavy handedness (in my opinion) was because they thought he had drugs on him and didnt want him to get rid of them - he didnt have drugs on him
they handcuffed him whilst he was in the car after smashing the window (???) no need to drag him out tho...

 

[Proper Tidy]

More usually things like failing to stop, trying to run away, being aggressive, violent and abusive ...

You know, I discovered recently that David Cameron got caught with some weed when he was 16/17. He was taken by the police back to Eton, and given a ruddy good telling off, but no criminal record. Discretion, on the copper's part, clearly.

I also got caught with weed when I was around the same age. It resulted in a night in the cells, a fine, compulsory attendance at a drugs awareness thing every Sunday for 4 weeks or something, and a criminal record for me.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You know, I discovered recently that David Cameron got caught with some weed when he was 16/17. He was taken by the police back to Eton, and given a ruddy good telling off, but no criminal record. Discretion, on the copper's part, clearly.

I also got caught with weed when I was around the same age. It resulted in a night in the cells, a fine, compulsory attendance at a drugs awareness thing every Sunday for 4 weeks or something, and a criminal record for me.

Fair's fair though mate, you did have an entire nine bar down your trousers.