Isn’t this the same wheeze that allowed undercover coppers on “important intelligence gathering exercises” to shag environmentalist girls with wild abandon at the tax-payer’s expense? With some going so far as to marry members of the group that were apparently so dangerous as to require infiltration and investigation?

The squat in Bristol associated with the anti-Tesco riots sounds to me like a useful candidate for infiltration. Perhaps it was infiltrated…

The OP mentions “a term dreamt up by the police to justify ever increasing lucrative budgets”. Really? Public servants feathering their own nests? Who would have thought it! Presumably, you think that all the other public servants would never resort to empire-building or nest-feathering, like the Police have…

This is the slippery slope of right wing elites. It started with the war on terror, and the idea that if you named someone as a terrorist you could boycott the judicial system. Idiot Blair signed up to this nonsense and then saw the power used by the police to remove a heckler from his own conference.

In America it is becoming quite the norm to call anyone who the right wing elites see as a threat to their power as a terrorist. Environmentalists are now regularly branded as terrorists. Wicka leaks has be named as a terrorist organisation. As It has now been openly accepted by mainstream America that terrorists can be tortured and killed without due process. It should be deeply alarming that the number of people who are branded as a terrorist is on the rise. .

But the system is now in place to by pass the courts and just shoot some who the authorities don’t like.

No problem whatsoever with the ‘Animal Rights’ lot being regarded as potential terrorists, as that is what a good few of them are.

Ditto the violent fellow travellers attached to – and signally often uncondemned by – the ‘Anti-Cuts movement’.

I’d see no real reason for monitoring peaceful demonstrators, and the setup needs a good deal more scrutiny and a real base in statute not loopholes. The transfer to the Met looks like a step forward, as there is more potential scrutiny, but it’s not enough. ACPO needs a good deal more dismembering.

I’d be inclined to look for supervision more from a Commons Committee, more like the Security Services.

Try Mad Mel on Jihadism in Londonistan. By the report, Jihadists have infiltrated the NHS and are now secretly bedded down there ready to strike on instruction from afar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YL4FvGvcpM

The stuff of nighmares? Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7eQyah4qU

ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.

The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4407115.ece

Not to worry. You can now report your concerns directly to MI5 online:
http://www.britishjihad.com/

@ 2. paul ilc

Ah, you mean “pro-capitalist police living in a capitalist society do things that capitalists and their agents do shock”. Mmm – insightful.

Having to Use The Daily amil ,crtiiscisn the amount of money it takes to have undercover cops in doestic extremism cases, Really undemines the arguments,

So some of the gorups the police go undercover to stop are protesters are tehy, I take It that Combat 18 or Zionist groups that want to kill Muslims are called protesters now are they,

I think if you bring law into this discussion – what consitutes terrorism becomes a lot clearer. Assuming a democratic state that broadly respects inalienable rights: “Terrorism is the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do.”

Clearly extreme elements of many domestic protest groups fit that definition – it seem natural to me that the police would want to take an interest in them. While I might agree with the political goals being persued by some protest groups – the activities of some of their members (when fitting the above definition) is clearly terrorist in nature and a threat to the liberal democratic states functioning.

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this infiltration issue is not so much the potential for police to gain access to information, but rather what it does to the fabric of trust in environmental and social movements.

A couple months ago I approached an environmental campaigning organisation, offering to do some pro bono work in helping them to develop a strategy for engaging with financial investors. They seemed very keen, and we arranged follow-up sessions, but a few days later they suddenly and confusingly pulled out of the project, with no convincing reason given. At first I thought maybe they just didn’t dig me, but then a friend of mine, heavily involved in climate change movements, suggested that widespread paranoia about strangers offering help was sweeping the environmental movements, and that’s perhaps why they rejected my offer.

I’ll never know if that’s the case, but I really hope progressive movements don’t shoot themselves in the foot by letting some shite police operation damage the networks of trust, because maintaining that trust is way more important than losing information.

This is dishonest, self-serving bollocks.

People who break the law (that includes invading private property with intention to disrupt trade) and people who foster hatred (that includes hatred of Jews, middle class people and the police) are legitimate targets for surveillance and infiltration.

The English Defence League and other right wing extremists also whine about the state keeping tabs on them. Their complaints should be ignored – and so should the complaints of left wing extremists who want to overthrow capitalism. Plot subversion if you want to but don’t expect society to treat you like the Womens Institute.

Big boys’ games, big boys’ rules.

No problem whatsoever with the ‘Animal Rights’ lot being regarded as potential terrorists, as that is what a good few of them are.

This is absurd. I believe in better conditions for animals, and yet I should be regarded as a terrorist?

This is absurd. I believe in better conditions for animals, and yet I should be regarded as a terrorist?

It rather depends on your actions and intentions.

“Terrorism is the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do.”

An animal rights activist would have to have a political goal (I suspect almost all do – whether that be a change in law, or a change in social attitudes to animal rights). I think this condition is satisfied.

The activist would have to use violence against non-combatants. What is a non-combatant in the animal rights struggle? Clearly the line is fuzzy, does the animal testing lab canteen worker constitute a combatant? I don’t think so – but one can argue over where exactly the line is. Certainly there have been cases of animal rights activists targeting families of combatants. Some activists satisfy this condition as well.

The activist would be having to using the above violence in order to dissuade people form carrying out lawful activity. While I am sure that some testing labs may break the law – I suspect that range of activities that many animal rights activists seek to constrain include activity which is lawful.

Personally I’ve got no problem with the unregulated police being the paramilitary arm of right wing parties because that’s the sort of pointless coward I am.

@sunny

>This is absurd. I believe in better conditions for animals, and yet I should be regarded as a terrorist?

Geoff with all the ff’s elucidates this point well. Your point, Sunny, is Animal Welfare not animal rights, and I probably concur with you about 99% on that. The RSPCA, for example, though it is pretty political and has nodded in the direction of “rights”, is about welfare; so is the Animal Welfare Act.

I’m thinking about the groups and individuals who do the firebombing, attacking laboratories, freeing mink into the countryside and so on.

The problem is the grey area, where legitimate protest overlaps with criminality/terrorism, such as Shac (claimed to be legit, turned out to be terrorists at the core).

Where such overlaps exist or can be reasonably seen to exist, I’m supportive of the use of surveillance.

Matt

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this infiltration issue is not so much the potential for police to gain access to information, but rather what it does to the fabric of trust in environmental and social movements.

A couple months ago I approached an environmental campaigning organisation, offering to do some pro bono work in helping them to develop a strategy for engaging with financial investors. They were very keen, and we arranged follow-up sessions, but then they suddenly and confusingly pulled out of the project, with no convincing reason given. A friend of mine, heavily involved in climate change movements, suggested that widespread paranoia about strangers offering help was sweeping the environmental movements, and that’s perhaps why they rejected my offer.

I’ll never know if that’s the case, but I really hope progressive movements don’t shoot themselves in the foot by letting some shite police operation damage the networks of trust, because maintaining that trust is way more important than losing information.

““Terrorism is the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do.””

Such as the actions of the police towards previously peaceful protesters? Excited teenagers?

Shouldn’t there be a few alarm bells ringing when a company like ACPO can behave as it has without any apparent oversight?

The Old Bill have lost their way again, just as they did in the 80s when politics and policing collided so violently. The law or Parliament needs to pull them up a bit and hold someone to account. I’d like to nominate Sir Hugh Orde for a start.

OP,

Maybe the police will never find a logical place to situate their “domestic extremist” units, because it was a grave error to ever bring them into existence in the first place.

I’m inclined to agree with the underlying sentiment of the article except for this sentence.

The problem is that there are “individuals or groups” involved in various campaigns “whose activities go outside the normal democratic process and engage in crime and disorder” (NETCU). So what should be done about them? The OP in effect suggests ignoring them or leaving them alone. This seems unreasonable.

“So, by the police’s logic, Al-Qaeda fits neatly in the same category as the likes of 86 year old John Catt, a peace campaigner with no criminal convictions. ”

No.

I agree with the article overall, but here you’re bending the truth to get a dramatic statement. As you yourself state, the police don’t use the word “terrorists” to refer to protesters. If the counter-terrorism department are dealing with this, it’s probably because the two jobs require similar skills and resources. Unless you can point to real evidence that the police equate peaceful protest with suicide bombers, which is extremely bloody unlikely, you shouldn’t make tabloid claims like this. Same goes for the story’s title, Sunny.

‘Assuming a democratic state that broadly respects inalienable rights: “Terrorism is the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do.”

That would include kettling, or forceable evicting pensioners from a Labour Party conference for being a bit shouty.

The OP blames this on the police attempting to justify their budgets but the blame lies in the hands of authoritarian governments (notably the last one) using the police for political ends.

‘Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this infiltration issue is not so much the potential for police to gain access to information, but rather what it does to the fabric of trust in environmental and social movements.’

What it does is make them behave in a justifiably suspicious manner which is then used as evidence of irrationality and paranoia ‘justifying’ further police attention.

@18 – Potentially – as long as the activity was lawful and that there was a broader political objective. I’m not in any way attempting to suggesting that the state can’t committ terrorist acts against the populace. Having studies a lot of definitions of terrorism put forward by various organizations and academics – that defintiion is the one I find the most useful. By referring to “inalienable rights” + “lawful behavior”, it all but does away with the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” discussion.

Clearly some domestic protestors deserve to be lumped in with the popular notion of terrorism – since that is exactly what they are engaged in.

EDL protestors are terrorists!

I am a terrorist then – glad we got that sorted – at least I am clear on where I stand.

If freedom is terrorism then a terrorist I shall be – and I make no apologies for it. If you want to lump me in with Osama Bin Laden, the IRA and FARC – then by all means do so.
It won’t make an ounce of difference to me – I have already joined the revolution and there is no turning back…

@22 – Freedom is if anything the opposite of terrorism. The key point of the defintion is that terrorism acts to dissuade others from doing what they have the LAWFUL right to do. Terrorism, however well intentioned seeks to impinge on these freedoms that are the result of democraticly passed law (with respect to inalienable rights).

You can’t have it both ways – terrorism as defined here is incompatible with any sensible notion of freedom.

@ 6: ‘Ah, you mean “pro-capitalist police living in a capitalist society do things that capitalists and their agents do shock”. Mmm – insightful.’

Your claim is tautologous, boiling down to ‘Capitalist police favour what capitalists do’, which is as insightful as ‘Hairless men are bald’. You can spin it out into a syllogism, if you prefer:

P1: All police are capitalists
P2: All capitalists are bad
Ergo: All police are bad.

But, though the argument is logically valid, both P1 and P2 are arguably false — particularly P1.

But that is probably lost on you. For anyone else who might be listening…

My point was that the police are part of the public services; and that all public servants — including the police — do have an interest (even if they do not admit it to themselves) in ramping up their budgets by ‘discovering’ ever greater layers of ‘social need’. And so public sector budgets DO need to be trimmed occasionally — like now (shock, horror!) when the public sector must retrench to 2007/8 levels…Or should we allow the public sector budget to rise inexorably as a proportion of GDP, borrowing even more?…

ANECDOTE: I am not anti-public sector. My wife works there, lucratively receiving a salary of £40K+ (+ pension + 40 days leave pa incl flexi-leave + flexi-time) when in the private sector her job might just command £25-£30K + 20 days leave. — [Thank you, taxpayers!] — Previously, I worked in the public sector in a senior management position for 10 years. I remember asking my then CEO about my prospects and her response was that she’d create another couple of units for me nominally to manage so that she could increase my salary! At that point, I decided to leave…and have worked happily in the private and voluntary sector ever since (though I do dearly miss the public sector leave and pension entitlements!).

@20 (Shatterface)
“What it does is make them behave in a justifiably suspicious manner which is then used as evidence of irrationality and paranoia ‘justifying’ further police attention.”

I agree. And’s it’s exactly that reaction that plays into the hands of the cops. Indeed, their real victory is psychological. It’s not like they really deeply care about finding some information on an upcoming protest, and certainly no serious cop is going to try make a name for themselves by infiltrating hippy groups. They could find that information on Twitter.

The true damage caused is not the information lost to some sad low-end hack put undercover into enviromentalist groups. The true damage is the resultant discord, the breakdown in the communication networks that comes when people allow themselves not to trust each other. If progressive movements wanted to beat the cops, the answer is certainly not to try protect themselves from the cops, it’s rather to ignore the cops.

@OP Bradley Day:

I appreciated your link to the Telegraph story about ACPO managing police operations: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8267692/Police-body-set-to-be-stripped-of-operational-powers.html

That story demands a judicial enquiry on its own. ACPO is a private members club. Membership is primarily for chief police officers and their deputies, but not all join. Membership is available to selected others in the UK police force and ancillary services. And to police officers in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, outside the UK.

How was ACPO permitted to run a private police force?

But to transfer officers to the Metropolitan Police? That is a minor improvement. As Matt Wardman wrote on one of his rare but pertinent contributions, the change has to be followed up with a monitoring committee. What are they doing?

@18. Chaise Guevara: “As you yourself state, the police don’t use the word “terrorists” to refer to protesters.”

Alas, the police muddle up all of the definitions. A link from the original piece defining “domestic terrorism”: http://www.netcu.org.uk/de/default.jsp

You and I know who a domestic terrorist is. A gun wielder on the door step, a threat from within, the evil bastard at your school.

The coppers define domestic terrorism differently. They describe: “Incidents have included public disorder offences, malicious letters and e-mails, blackmail, product contamination, damage to property and occasionally the use of improvised explosive devices.”

With two exceptions, all of that is terrorism, plain and simple. The only arguable cases are “public disorder offences” and “damage to property”. But two petty offences are smeared with violence against a person.

But it is quite possible to be an exetremist who is not engaged in terrorism. That said many overtly non-terrorist extremist groups have fringes that do, or would wish to engage in terrorism. Those individuals that have crossed the violence threshold are constantly changing, because within extremist groups there is often a body of support, or at least sympathy for the actions of the violent fringe.

By engaging in terrorism or supporting those that do the same – they are effectivly saying that their single issue – trumps the liberal democratic system of consent – the basis on which society operates and what the police are tasked to protect. The fact that the police would have a keen interest in any extremist group that has reasonable potential of engaging in terrorism (and thus undermining that system) doesn’t surprise me in the least. What is the controversy here? The police are doing their job, and I think if you got most people to really think about it – perhaps saving their own pet interest, they would agree it was necesarry too.

Charlieman,

Alas, the police muddle up all of the definitions. A link from the original piece defining “domestic terrorism”: http://www.netcu.org.uk/de/default.jsp

No, it describes “domestic extremism”, not “domestic terrorism” (which isn’t in fact mentioned once on that page – terrorism is mentioned twice, once on its own and once in the phrase “Terrorism Act 2000″).

The coppers define domestic terrorism differently. They describe: “Incidents have included public disorder offences, malicious letters and e-mails, blackmail, product contamination, damage to property and occasionally the use of improvised explosive devices.”

No, those are among the “tactics used by extremists”, not domestic terrorists, as it clearly says.

Anyone who still supports the police clearly haven’t had enough interaction with them.

I won my IPCC case against the police – illegal search – the consequences? NOTHING, not a bean.

Stopped and illegally searched on the street and the authorities take no action.

Now who thinks we live in a free society?

I have witnessed police doing things which if seen on AlJazeera in Egypt or Bharain – we would be calling ‘outrageous’ and criticising the regime that allows this to happen.

I mean only recently Theresa May was calling for powers so that the police can stop and remove any item of clothing covering the face.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GpIxDFP7tdQ/SeTCUo1inSI/AAAAAAAAA8s/7IODlkGG6kI/s400/riot+cops.jpg

…so what about that then.

Some people are so naeive it’s scary. I mean this is like 1936 Germany – we have those who are showing real concern….and those who think these Brownshirt fellows are “just a storm in a teacup”.

@31 – What’s your point?

What do you mean by “support the police”? I don’t blindly support all aspects of their work – clearly there is massive room for improvment, abuse of power, lack of accountability etc. But what are you suggesting to remedy that situation? I support the police in principle, they do a lot of things I think most of us approve of and there is certainly a need for them if society is going to operate moderately well. Getting rid of the police isn’t the answer – campaigning for greater accountability – and in my view independent auditing of covert activities and the quality of the internal safeguards put in palce to ensure it is lawful and justified would be a good start.