DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
As has been noted, many of the spycops, and many, many more of those they spied on, are by virtue of their age alone likely to be in at-risk categories in coronavirus terms.
Undercover policing enquiry
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
ska invita
back on the other side
I really hope the police really thoroughly investigate themselves for that.Police spy unit shredded documents after UCPI set up
Undercover policing inquiry: secretive Met unit shredded files
Watchdog says intelligence officers destroyed documents despite being told to keep themwww.theguardian.com
Brazen cunts
teqniq
DisMembered
Police spy unit shredded documents after UCPI set up
Undercover policing inquiry: secretive Met unit shredded files
Watchdog says intelligence officers destroyed documents despite being told to keep them
How convenient.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Further coverage of the above:Police spy unit shredded documents after UCPI set up
Undercover policing inquiry: secretive Met unit shredded files
Watchdog says intelligence officers destroyed documents despite being told to keep them
Met shredded 'undercover policing' documents despite order telling them not to
Police officers shredded documents that ‘may have been relevant’ to a public inquiry into undercover policing, a watchdog has found.
metro.co.uk
Met Police officers ‘shredded documents linked to undercover policing inquiry’
Watchdog also investigated claims Scotland Yard withheld information on Green Party politician Baroness Jenny Jones
www.independent.co.uk
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
IOPC page on its various ‘investigations’ into NDEDIU shredding shenanigans:
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
LET THE WHITEWASH COMMENCE!
Day 1: The Deluge... 125 new pieces of documentary evidence dumped, all in one go.
www.ucpi.org.uk
COPS report:
campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com
Day 1: The Deluge... 125 new pieces of documentary evidence dumped, all in one go.
02 Nov 2020 Archives - Undercover Policing Inquiry
www.ucpi.org.uk
COPS report:
UCPI Daily Report, 2 Nov 2020
Report from the opening day of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, in which Counsel to the Inquiry described the background to the process.
campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Creamer/Cremer the Situationist is a common thread running through a lot of the early documents. Will be interesting to see how much importance his vaunted prescience in matters ideological really had in the AB investigations, and how much was just spycops and touts.
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
I was going to ask if theres one long list of all the organisations that are so far known to have been spied on - but i found it
here
under the whos who tab
"show 100 entries"
here
Undercover Research Group
Investigating political policing, spying on activists and undermining of dissent
undercoverresearch.net
"show 100 entries"
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Undercover Policing Inquiry releases photos of early managers - Undercover Research Group
Spycops Hearings Communication Group, 2 November 2020Today, at the first day of the hearings, during Opening Statements, David Barr, Counsel to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, released for the first time photographs of some of the earliest managers and one undercover … Continue reading →
undercoverresearch.net
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Report on day two:
campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com
UCPI Daily Report, 3 Nov 2020
A summary of the second day of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, featuring arrogance & irrelevance from lawyers representing police & state.
campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com
teqniq
DisMembered
To anyone who's interested a reminder that it worh checking on and or following https://twitter.com/tombfowler for ongoing updates on the inquiry.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Angry, articulate, surgical critique from Dónal O'Driscoll of the Undercover Research Group in his opening statement:
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
New podcast “Bed of Lies” on Spycops from the Daily Telegraph with a lot of the women interviewed. First ep today:
(Apple link but I assume is available in the usual places)
(Apple link but I assume is available in the usual places)
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
More news of Rob Harrison / Boogie Boy
www.theguardian.com
Undercover officer rekindled relationship seven years later, inquiry told
‘Rob Harrison’ reappeared in woman’s life in 2014, before disappearing again
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
wtf:
www.leeds-live.co.uk
Millions wasted on undercover operations as cops infiltrated 'clown army'
The 'absurd' activities of undercover police officers have been described as 'farcical'
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Yeah she was quite well known. Her flat apparently looked like everything was bought at the same time.wtf:
Millions wasted on undercover operations as cops infiltrated 'clown army'
The 'absurd' activities of undercover police officers have been described as 'farcical'
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Chairman Mittens appears to have recently watched the Chicago 7 film on Netflix, judging (arf) by his outburst this morning.
Tariq Ali's lawyer asked to put some questions to a former undercover; Mittens told him he could only ask one.
When the lawyer pointed out there was plenty of time, and queried what grounds there were to prevent core participants' lawyers from questioning witnesses, Mittens threatened him, barking "YOU WILL BE SILENCED!"
Laugh/cry, etc.
Tariq Ali's lawyer asked to put some questions to a former undercover; Mittens told him he could only ask one.
When the lawyer pointed out there was plenty of time, and queried what grounds there were to prevent core participants' lawyers from questioning witnesses, Mittens threatened him, barking "YOU WILL BE SILENCED!"
Laugh/cry, etc.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
I remember reading that she had put up a Class War poster and everyone was like "WTF are you into Class War, you're in the Clown Army, do me a favour..."
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
From the transcript...
MR BARR: Sir, before Mr Skelton, I understand that Mr Menon wishes to make an application.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Bear with us while Mr Menon makes an application. Thank you. Mr Menon.
MR MENON: Good afternoon, sir. I apply pursuant to rule 10, subsection 3, alternatively subsection 4, of the permission to ask questions of this witness. I will be brief, if I'm given permission. My questions fall into three categories: firstly, topics that haven't been covered at all by Counsel to the Inquiry; secondly, topics that have been covered but where there are follow-up questions that I would, with your permission, be allowed to ask; and, thirdly, questions that arise not from matters that are in the witness's statement, but from matters that he has given in evidence today fresh for the first time. I hope that you'll give me the permission that I seek to do this. I -- I repeat, I will be brief. It will be quicker and more efficient, in my submission, for me to do it this way, as opposed to for us to now have a break for me to have a discussion with Mr Barr and to try to persuade him to ask the questions that I wish to ask. And in the wider context of concerns, if I can put it as neutrally as I can, that have been expressed by many about the effective participation of the non-state core participants, I hope that you will allow me to ask just a few questions of this witness.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have already submitted your suggested topics to Mr Barr, I think, have you not?
MR MENON: Yes, I complied with the protocol that you put in force and submitted a list of issues and topics that I wish to ask this witness about. And I received, this morning, a reply from the Inquiry as to its attitude to the pro forma that I submitted. But a number of matters that I had hoped would be asked haven't been asked, and hence my oral application.
THE CHAIRMAN: What topics do you want to ask about?
MR MENON: I want to ask about the following topics: Firstly, the motivations, and in particular the political motivations, of the SDS in those early months. Secondly, further questions about the selection and targeting of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, and questions specifically about what HN329 was told, beyond what he's already said, in relation to why the VSC was being targeted, and who and what he was supposed to do when he started attending these meetings. Thirdly, further questions about the general methodology of the SDS and what exactly happened at those daily, or nearly daily, meetings that were taking place at the SDS safe house before officers went into the field, so to speak, to attend meetings of different groups that almost certainly would have taken place in the evening. So they were effectively spending most of the day in this house. And HN329 has been asked a little bit about it, but I'd like to ask further questions in relation to that. I'd like to ask further questions, if I may, about what information this particular witness gathered during the many -- from the many meetings that he attended, that he believes resulted in the October 1968 demonstration not being a violent public disorder as the March 1968 demonstration had been. I'd like to ask questions about Box 500, which, as you know, features regularly on intelligence reports produced by officers during this period. And one final matter in relation to one of the documents that Mr Barr showed the witness in relation to a meeting attended by this witness. So you can see my questions cover a range of topics.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, what was the latter topic? The last topic?
MR MENON: The last topic was, there is one further matter I wanted to ask HN329 about in relation to the meeting that he attended along with eight other undercover police officers, where a vote was taken in relation to the details of the October 1968 march. And I notice that we have plenty of time before we are to hear the statement of Ernie Tate read at 2 o'clock by Nick Stanage, and I'll be finished well before that time, with plenty of time for Mr Skelton to ask further questions arising from anything that I ask.
THE CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but I have to keep order in the proceedings and to ensure not merely that this witness is not troubled by questions that have already adequately been covered by Mr Barr and by his statement and by the documents, but also that this does not set a precedent for future such requests. Of the seven topics that you have given to me, one and one only may give rise to a question that can rightly be posed to this witness, and that is the last one: the meeting where the vote was taken about the route that was to be adopted on 27 October. You may ask about that, but not about other topics.
MR MENON: But, sir, I've highlighted --
THE CHAIRMAN: You may ask about that but not other topics. That is my ruling.
MR MENON: Very well, sir. Can I make it clear that I cannot understand --
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you may not. I'm sorry. You may ask your questions, or you will be silenced.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Bear with us while Mr Menon makes an application. Thank you. Mr Menon.
MR MENON: Good afternoon, sir. I apply pursuant to rule 10, subsection 3, alternatively subsection 4, of the permission to ask questions of this witness. I will be brief, if I'm given permission. My questions fall into three categories: firstly, topics that haven't been covered at all by Counsel to the Inquiry; secondly, topics that have been covered but where there are follow-up questions that I would, with your permission, be allowed to ask; and, thirdly, questions that arise not from matters that are in the witness's statement, but from matters that he has given in evidence today fresh for the first time. I hope that you'll give me the permission that I seek to do this. I -- I repeat, I will be brief. It will be quicker and more efficient, in my submission, for me to do it this way, as opposed to for us to now have a break for me to have a discussion with Mr Barr and to try to persuade him to ask the questions that I wish to ask. And in the wider context of concerns, if I can put it as neutrally as I can, that have been expressed by many about the effective participation of the non-state core participants, I hope that you will allow me to ask just a few questions of this witness.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have already submitted your suggested topics to Mr Barr, I think, have you not?
MR MENON: Yes, I complied with the protocol that you put in force and submitted a list of issues and topics that I wish to ask this witness about. And I received, this morning, a reply from the Inquiry as to its attitude to the pro forma that I submitted. But a number of matters that I had hoped would be asked haven't been asked, and hence my oral application.
THE CHAIRMAN: What topics do you want to ask about?
MR MENON: I want to ask about the following topics: Firstly, the motivations, and in particular the political motivations, of the SDS in those early months. Secondly, further questions about the selection and targeting of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, and questions specifically about what HN329 was told, beyond what he's already said, in relation to why the VSC was being targeted, and who and what he was supposed to do when he started attending these meetings. Thirdly, further questions about the general methodology of the SDS and what exactly happened at those daily, or nearly daily, meetings that were taking place at the SDS safe house before officers went into the field, so to speak, to attend meetings of different groups that almost certainly would have taken place in the evening. So they were effectively spending most of the day in this house. And HN329 has been asked a little bit about it, but I'd like to ask further questions in relation to that. I'd like to ask further questions, if I may, about what information this particular witness gathered during the many -- from the many meetings that he attended, that he believes resulted in the October 1968 demonstration not being a violent public disorder as the March 1968 demonstration had been. I'd like to ask questions about Box 500, which, as you know, features regularly on intelligence reports produced by officers during this period. And one final matter in relation to one of the documents that Mr Barr showed the witness in relation to a meeting attended by this witness. So you can see my questions cover a range of topics.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, what was the latter topic? The last topic?
MR MENON: The last topic was, there is one further matter I wanted to ask HN329 about in relation to the meeting that he attended along with eight other undercover police officers, where a vote was taken in relation to the details of the October 1968 march. And I notice that we have plenty of time before we are to hear the statement of Ernie Tate read at 2 o'clock by Nick Stanage, and I'll be finished well before that time, with plenty of time for Mr Skelton to ask further questions arising from anything that I ask.
THE CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but I have to keep order in the proceedings and to ensure not merely that this witness is not troubled by questions that have already adequately been covered by Mr Barr and by his statement and by the documents, but also that this does not set a precedent for future such requests. Of the seven topics that you have given to me, one and one only may give rise to a question that can rightly be posed to this witness, and that is the last one: the meeting where the vote was taken about the route that was to be adopted on 27 October. You may ask about that, but not about other topics.
MR MENON: But, sir, I've highlighted --
THE CHAIRMAN: You may ask about that but not other topics. That is my ruling.
MR MENON: Very well, sir. Can I make it clear that I cannot understand --
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you may not. I'm sorry. You may ask your questions, or you will be silenced.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
It's been a rollercoaster day today, even though it was just four written summaries read out (HN 333, HN 339, HN 343 & HN 349), and a single, septuagenarian ex-spycop, HN 345, giving evidence via video link.
HN 345 - who used the cover name ‘Peter Fredericks’ - infiltrated groups related to Bangladeshi independence/Operation Omega and Black Power. He claims not to have had intimate relationships with any of those people he targeted, and says he only heard about other undercover officers engaging in such activity “within the last two years”, having been contacted by the UCPI. His turn of phrase in explaining away such behaviour was telling:
HN 345 - who used the cover name ‘Peter Fredericks’ - infiltrated groups related to Bangladeshi independence/Operation Omega and Black Power. He claims not to have had intimate relationships with any of those people he targeted, and says he only heard about other undercover officers engaging in such activity “within the last two years”, having been contacted by the UCPI. His turn of phrase in explaining away such behaviour was telling:
Last edited:
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
This is a spycop who has said he didn't personally engage in grooming female targets for sexual relationships, and who claims to think that doing so would be wrong.
Yet still he is prepared to go the extra mile to explain why those that did, did - and even to excuse them. And using language which it would be difficult to supersede in terms of either objectification or objectionability.
Just imagine the terms in which the spycops who (i) definitely did, and (ii) don't see anything wrong with it, would describe their behaviour, particularly amongst themselves.
Yet still he is prepared to go the extra mile to explain why those that did, did - and even to excuse them. And using language which it would be difficult to supersede in terms of either objectification or objectionability.
Just imagine the terms in which the spycops who (i) definitely did, and (ii) don't see anything wrong with it, would describe their behaviour, particularly amongst themselves.
Last edited:
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
If the organisation you infiltrate is building a cardboard tank to protest the arms trade. It's not worth infiltrating.
Whoever thought this was worth doing needs sacking and the cops as well. Not sure what is worse if they were milking the system on an easy number. Or they actually thought they doing something useful and they were putting their lives on the line.
Whoever thought this was worth doing needs sacking and the cops as well. Not sure what is worse if they were milking the system on an easy number. Or they actually thought they doing something useful and they were putting their lives on the line.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Spycops is being too kind to the wankers
Walt cops more like it.
Could write a novel tinker Taylor soldier wanker
Pc fuckwit seduces the militant vegan to discover the vegbollah hideout
I mean some activists talk a big game.
That justifies a closer look especially if they seem to be fans of violence etc. But professionals should be able to figure out fairly quickly if it's bullshit or not.
The hard left support of the armed struggle agent provocateur might be a valid tactic to discover if they are serious about backing up their words with actions if they freak out you can cross them off the list if your going to continue to inflitate it's not doing anything of value the provos are never going to turn to these people for help they weren't stupid.
If your into violence or serious illegal activity your fair game for the state.
About the only person on urban75 who needed investigating was rave in a minefield guy as he was putting himself and others at serious risk
Walt cops more like it.
Could write a novel tinker Taylor soldier wanker
Pc fuckwit seduces the militant vegan to discover the vegbollah hideout
I mean some activists talk a big game.
That justifies a closer look especially if they seem to be fans of violence etc. But professionals should be able to figure out fairly quickly if it's bullshit or not.
The hard left support of the armed struggle agent provocateur might be a valid tactic to discover if they are serious about backing up their words with actions if they freak out you can cross them off the list if your going to continue to inflitate it's not doing anything of value the provos are never going to turn to these people for help they weren't stupid.
If your into violence or serious illegal activity your fair game for the state.
About the only person on urban75 who needed investigating was rave in a minefield guy as he was putting himself and others at serious risk
Last edited:
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Poor old Diesel - forgotten alreadyAbout the only person on urban75 who needed investigating was rave in a minefield guy as he was putting himself and others at serious risk
maybe the spooks have a point a sci fi board I'm on had someone belive they were a,big cat kill and eat someone
.Similar threads
