What if the police infiltrated left groups not for the state but for corporations?


by Guest    
9:20 am - June 25th 2013

      Share on Tumblr

by Jonathan Kent

So the leaflet at the centre of the McDonalds libel trial was co-written by Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who later apologised to the “law abiding members of London Greenpeace,” which he described as a peaceful campaigning group.

Likewise Mark Kennedy/Stone, who couldn’t fathom what threat the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station protesters he’d infiltrated posed. The judge trying one group of Ratcliffe protesters praised their public spiritedness. Doesn’t anyone else think it odd that the state spends millions of pounds infiltrating annoying, but mostly harmless, groups of hippies?

It makes no sense, until you stop to consider what happens to the surveillance data.

Simon Jenkins, in The Guardian, noted that Stone/Kennedy was working for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit whose chain of command lead to the Association of Chief Police Officers.

But ACPO isn’t a statutory body. It’s a private company and, according to Jenkins, it sold data to other private companies. It’s when you start to think about surveillance as a business that infiltrating peaceful, democratic green / leftist / anti-capitalist groups starts to make sense. There’s a market for surveillance data and demand drives supply.

Ask yourself this: who might buy data about far-right groups or militant ‘Islamists’ who represent a threat to public safety and the state? The answer, surely, is the state, and the state has tight budgets and a security apparatus of its own.

But who would buy information about greens, democratic leftists and assorted anti-capitalists? Big business has limited security apparatus of its own, deep pockets and, if protesters threaten the bottom line, the corporation’s motive-of-motives; money.

So the question is not ‘why spend so much infiltrating peaceful protest groups?’ but ‘just how far have our security priorities been distorted by the market for information?’ The more it becomes about money the less it becomes about national security and the more about protecting financial interests.

Now think about all this in the context of the Snowden revelations about PRISM and GCHQ.

Once we stood up for our liberties. Indeed millions donned uniforms and fought, were wounded or were killed in their defence. Now all it takes is one or two savage attacks on our streets and we’re prepared to throw away everything our forebears gave their lives for.

But we live in a different world where power is inexorably seeping away from our elected representatives who, however flawed they may be, are ultimately accountable to us. And power is flowing equally inexorably towards corporations – unaccountable, faceless and legally constituted to be amoral; uninterested in right and wrong only in serving their shareholders’ interests. PRISM benefits them.

What is at stake is not different ideas of right and wrong, right-wing morality versus left-wing morality, it’s whether we have a world in which morality plays any significant part at all.

Overwrought? Two weeks ago suggestions of an all-seeing, all-encompassing surveillance state across the Western democracies might have seemed equally so. But PRISM exists and so do real threats to the very fabric of society.

Our forebears were prepared to give their lives to stop this sort of thing. What are we prepared to give?


Jonathan Kent blogs here.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Crime


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Please don’t make this a left vs right thing!

Businesses are just as interested in other businesses as they are in Swampy. Government (which IMHO is intrinsically left-leaning) is interested in everything.

It’s an all round mess. Obviously been going on for years (after all, that’s what GCHQ is for), but both left and right are equally upset.

This truly is an issue where we are all in it together, and I am, like you, a drop of water in the ocean of resistance.

And don’t start me off on ACPO and Common Purpose…

I’m clearly noot making it a left-right thing – c.f. “What is at stake is not different ideas of right and wrong, right-wing morality versus left-wing morality, it’s whether we have a world in which morality plays any significant part at all.”
I’m saying that if the market distorts surveillance priorities it helps explain the security services’ interest in peaceful protest groups. And yes businesses are interested in other businesses – and if evidence emerges that state security services are freelancing and selling commercial information on one British company to another then that would open up yet another dimension to this whole, appalling saga.

3. Matt Wardman

Yes and no.

I think infiltration of eg the ALF is fine and commendable. They were – and afaik still are – a terrorist group pure and simple, with their letter bombs, threats of violence, arson and all the rest. Those who join support network for such groups are perfectly legitimate targets.

Greenpeace are usually peaceful, though often not law abiding, and so are not imho a legitimate target. In protests such as Radcliffe on Soar they go way beyond peaceful protest, so I’m quite willing to defend infiltration in those circumstances

The main thing I’d like to see on the spying question is independent judicial supervision of the use of that capability.

“so I’m quite willing to defend infiltration in those circumstances”

Infiltration is one thing, but the allegations go beyond that. Do you think it is right for undercover officers to have sexual relationships leading to children with activists? Or to try to dig up dirt to sabotage a campaign for justice for a murder victim?

I can accept spying on ALF, and to a lesser extent direct action groups. Although resources should always be directed to those groups who pose the biggest threat – which for the last 30 years has been islamic terrorism, the IRA and far right groups. Indeed one of the problems has been that those groups were not targeted enough because the security services were too busy targeting hippies. But undercover officers should not be behaving as they have been.

5. Shatterface

So the leaflet at the centre of the McDonalds libel trial was co-written by Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who later apologised to the “law abiding members of London Greenpeace,” which he described as a peaceful campaigning group.

It’s going to be fun watching those who previously argued the leaflet was substantially correct backtrack now they know the police helped produce it.

6. Man on Clapham Omnibus

The Author of this makes the mistake that in some ways morality is involved or indeed representative democracy.
Society is about two things – making money and gaining retaining power.

The more you have the more you make. Activists are a stain on this process and the social relations it creates and it is quite logical that if they get in the way they should be infiltrated and desposed of.

The notion that in some way we all stood up this process in the second world war is laughable. Half the Tory cabinet were appeasers because of the huge amounts of cash they were about to lose. This was the cynical reseting of Capitalism whereby the US stood around watching the back of the UK being broken before offering the punitive ‘lease lend’. If you think facism is dead then you are not looking at Europe at the moment.

Personally I think the GCHQ modus operandi is quite logical and is no different from a cop suspecting a break in by observing suspicious behaviour. At the initial time of the observation no warrants are specifically in place.Its a process of observation and investigation.
GCHQ has merely speeded the process of detection up,a bit like a lot of cops on the beat. I though that’s what everyone wanted. (PS if GCHQ is listening in – I will pay my milk bill – promise!)

As to defeating the war on terror I would have preferred the CIA not to have trained Al Quieda in the first place and then Tony not to have started a crusade against the middle east as a means to obtain oil.(more Bush’s idea but Blair went along for the kudos LOL!!)

Representative democracy – it really is worth fighting for.

Dear Johnathan

Whilst I broadly agree with the point you’re making I do wish people/journalists would stop saying – oh one terrorist attack and we freely give up our liberties!!

I’ve never sacrificed a thing. No-one bloody asked me. My goverment on the other hand loves this excuse to deny and reduce hard won freedoms.

What should I do about this. Write a letter? Short of immolating myself I can’t see why anyone in government would notice given that their sole purpose is to accrue more power unto themselves. They then sell the information they generate onto corporations. I can’t see anywhere where i’ve been consulted.

Please don’t tell me General elections or “protesting”. I’ve been part of the protesting community for over a decade and for all the justice I felt in actually doing it i’ve never seen that it has actually changed anything (yet).

8. Man on Clapham Omnibus

5. Shatterface

I’m still getting over the fact he can read and write!

well said 1 and 7, one thing if the chief police were allowed to have their own federation (as they’re not allowed to have a union) then acpo wouldn’t need to be a private company

@9 John Reid

That’s a bit of a non sequitur. After all as far as we know the Police Federation doesn’t organise undercover police ops or run itself for profit. I have to agree with the implication in the OP: it’s time ACPO was put under close scrutiny.

Planeshift @4

Do you think it is right for undercover officers to have sexual relationships leading to children with activists?

It’s absolutely criminal what those under cover police did. One woman – who had a child with one – said she felt she’d been raped by the state. The guy should be in prison.

Or to try to dig up dirt to sabotage a campaign for justice for a murder victim?

You’re talking about this group you know? The YRE.
I think that is a bit more tricky.

Btw, this is the policeman from the Dispatches programme, Peter Francis, talking three years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/14/undercover-policeman-infiltrated-violent-activists
So why everyone is saying they are so shocked to hear about it now I don’t know.

12. John Reid

10 that’s because the federation is allowed to exist for its rank and files officer. Let there be a fedeation for Chief police and then ACPO could close

Light bulb moment. How very true Jonathan. Just as the likely customers for intelligence on animal rights protests would be the big research labs of the pharmaceutical companies.

In recent months, there has been lots of headline news about Police officers selling off confidential information about criminal investigations to the press. But what of the possibility of Special Branch police or GCHQ operatives donating confidential political intelligence, gleaned from their survelliance operations, to their favoured political causes?

Recap: the Watergate scandal in America in 1972 was over a break-in at the Democrat head offices in Washington DC to gather political intelligence on the Democrat party’s plans for the forthcoming Presidential election, which Nixon, the Republican candidate, duly won.

15. Richard Carey

Well, libertarians like me have been trying to tell y’all that the left versus right thing is largely bollocks and the state is the enemy. With these kinds of stories, it is clear that the state is not under control of the politicians, but rather a predatory criminal enterprise seemingly under no control. The main difference between the British version and that found in places like Equatorial Guinea is that ours established itself a couple of hundred years ago, so doesn’t need to shoot protesters in the streets any more (although it would again if deemed necessary).

There hasn’t been much of a state going in Somalia for years but that hasn’t led to anything nearly idyllic. The rule of the gun has prevailed. The result has been closer to Thomas Hobbes’s description of the state of nature The Leviathan: a life that is nasty, brutish and short.

As Edmund Burke put it: Liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed. That is why it would make a lot of sense to revoke the Second Amendment in the US Constitution.

17. Richard Carey

@ 16 Bob,

“The rule of the gun has prevailed.”

It always does. It has here. What did Mao say?

“That is why it would make a lot of sense to revoke the Second Amendment”

It’s ironic that at a time when the Bill of Rights is being violated left, right and centre, you think the answer to America’s problems is to violate it some more.

18. Planeshift

“You’re talking about this group you know? The YRE.
I think that is a bit more tricky.”

I’m not that familiar with YRE, but I’d say The police have a right to gather information about a group that may turn violent/has a history of doing so (with the caveat about ensuring resources are appropriately directed and the same standards are applied across the board) . But they don’t have a right to actively sabotage such a group pursuing a peaceful campaign – chances are such groups will sabotage themselves anyway.

In the case of the Lawrences, it was clearly out of bounds to spy on the family directly for the purposes of sabotaging any campaign the Lawrences associated themselves with. A simply activist directly in YRE would have been sufficient for noting any planned illegal activities, and their role should have been informing at the most. Not to dig up dirt for the media.

Intelligence gathering and surveillance by “the authorities” is not now the only issue in the public debate.

What of this?

Lord Justice Leveson is to be tackled by MPs over his failure to follow up a police report which revealed that hacking operations were ordered by law, telecoms and insurance companies.

The judge who conducted the Government-commissioned investigation into press ethics has been called before a Commons select committee to face questions over his inquiry.

Lord Justice Leveson received a report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency which said companies routinely hired criminals to hack, blag and steal private information from rivals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-to-confront-leveson-over-why-he-ignored-hacking-beyond-the-press-8673657.html

20. So Much For Subtlety

4. Planeshift

Do you think it is right for undercover officers to have sexual relationships leading to children with activists?

Ummm, why not? I fail to see what the outrage is about entirely consentual sexual acts between adults.

The ALF has done far more damage to Britain than the Far Right.

21. Richard Carey

@ 21 SMFS

“I fail to see what the outrage is about entirely consentual sexual acts between adults.”

The women were deceived as to the identity of the men, therefore they did not consent to the actual relationship. It’s the same if a woman had sex with a man who climbed in the window and pretended to be her husband.

Try the eventful and successful career of Victor Lustig: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig

His most successful scam was selling the Eiffel Tower in Paris to a scrap metal dealer in 1925.

The question is whether we want that kind of skilled fraudster in the Police force.

In a liberal democratic society – especially one where power is becoming increasingly diffused away from the state law become the effective expression of a state’s shared morality.

If morality is to play a part in public life – it should be expressed in the form of law.

This seems to be a key part of governments both Labour and Conservative efforts to leverage the power of the market for the public interest. The attempt to do so is imperfect, but it seems that the goal is to align private interests with public interests.

How one defines public interest is another matter, but still…

“This seems to be a key part of governments both Labour and Conservative efforts to leverage the power of the market for the public interest. The attempt to do so is imperfect, but it seems that the goal is to align private interests with public interests.”

There is a vast professional economics literature on divergences between social and private costs and benefits in the context of the causes of market failure. For instance, try Ralph Turvey: On Divergences between Social Cost and Private Cost
http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/externalitylit/turvey-economica1963.pdf

It would reassuring to know that politicians are at last catching on to what economists have been discussing for decades past. Even so, judging by what the business and financial press is saying lately and the final report of the Parliamentary Commission on banking, there still seems a long way to go with banking reform.

25. Richard Carey

@ 21 McJefferies

did you write that comment in a foreign language and then put it through translation software? I’m sure I’d disagree if I understood it.

@3 Matt “In protests such as Radcliffe on Soar they go way beyond peaceful protest, so I’m quite willing to defend infiltration in those circumstances”

That’s why I thoought it useful to reference the conclusion of the trial judge; http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/05/ratcliffe-coal-protesters-sentence

“You are all decent men and women with a genuine concern for others, and in particular for the survival of planet Earth in something resembling its present form,” he said.

“I have no doubt that each of you acted with the highest possible motives. And that is an extremely important consideration.”

The Ratcliffe protesters planned to shut down a coal-fired power station for a week to draw attention to coal power’s contribution to climate change. Stone/Kennedy is also accused of having acted as an agent provocateur.

So one key question that’s implicit in this piece is ‘why would the state authorise undercover officers to infiltrate peaceful protest groups (when there are other forms of less intrusive surveillance available) at a cost of £250K per officer per year, either encourage or willfully ignore those officers starting sexual relationships with protesters on false pretences, simply to stop the odd demo against climate change?

Given how many explicitly violent plots have supposedly only be stopped by chance, or haven’t been stopped at all, it makes you wonder why there’s so much emphasis in disrupting peaceful protest. It simply seems disproportionate.

If it’s not driven by commercial realities then one must ask whether it’s being driven by the political outlook of the police. Remember that the Rebel Clown Army were reportedly designated as domestic extremists while the EDL were not (though that may have changed) – the RCA being situationist street theatre protesters, the EDL being violent neo fascists. Does that reflect the police’s own sympathies? I’d hope not but their behaviour starts to legitimise the question.

The other point made above, which I think opens up a fantastic discussion the left needs to have is @15 Richard Carey.

What libertarians take issue with is the power and scope of the state. The left often likes the state when it’s the provider of public services. However we’re inclined to overlook the fact that the state has a tendency to freelance – to become a self serving, self-preserving entity rather than being of, by and for the people, an expression of the collective will and the instrument of collective action.

If Sunny will wear another article there’s a lot to be said about the need for the left to re-define the state as a limited state (rather than necessarily a smaller state) that acts when we all require it to and that is not allowed to develop a life of its own.

Whether the growth of surveillance culture is the result of this (or the result of close ties between big business, politics and the security apparatus, or both) is up for debate.

27. john reid

Ive lied to a couple of ex girlfriends who were Tories, on who i voted for, its just the same rape!

28. Matt Wardman

@Jonathon

I note the Judge’s comments, but I do not think that makes any difference to this debate.

However you slice it, and however much rhetoric is involved, attempting to shut down the electricity supplies for 3 million people is *not* a peaceful protest. It is a protest with the obvious effect of damaging all those people.

That is where I think I sharply part company with you.

The same applies to any other violent protests over the last several years, from smashing up Millbank Tower and attacking the Charles/Camilla car, to the “peaceful” protestors who offered violence in Soho recently when evicted from a building they had broken into illegally.

I would say though that the Sussex Uni occupation this year was peaceful protest for the first 6 weeks – until the NCAFC lunatics turned up and starting damaging buildings.

@planeshift

“Infiltration is one thing, but the allegations go beyond that. Do you think it is right for undercover officers to have sexual relationships leading to children with activists? Or to try to dig up dirt to sabotage a campaign for justice for a murder victim?”

1 – I think it very much depends on the circumstances, and on proper supervision which was *not* exercised in this case.

So I’d agree that this was way out of order.

I think the “this is rape through not obtaining informed consent” claims are off beam, because that would mean that everybody who had ever had a short or long-term fling without saying they were married was guilty of not obtaining informed consent.

2 – Not acceptable.

@1

“Please don’t make this a left vs right thing!

Businesses are just as interested in other businesses as they are in Swampy. Government (which IMHO is intrinsically left-leaning) is interested in everything”.

Said without a trace of irony. A bit like your username, eh?

@15

“Well, libertarians like me have been trying to tell y’all that the left versus right thing is largely bollocks and the state is the enemy”.

“Libertarians” like you are right-wing. It’s only the Right that spouts the “left versus right is bollocks” line. The word “libertarian” was effectively stolen from the anarchists by minarchists and other small staters (who want to retain the repressive apparatuses of the state), who originally referred to themselves as “libertarians”. Right libertarianism is nothing less than a rationalisation of selfishness.

31. So Much For Subtlety

21. Richard Carey

The women were deceived as to the identity of the men, therefore they did not consent to the actual relationship. It’s the same if a woman had sex with a man who climbed in the window and pretended to be her husband.

That is absurd. If I tell people I am James Bond and they sleep with me, it is not rape. They consent to the relationship with the man, not his name or his claimed identity. A man who pretends to be a woman’s husband is committing a very specific type of fraud. He knows she is not consenting to sex with him. That is not true here. The women met the men. They got to know them – their personality, their looks, their character even if not their real name. And then they consented to sexual relationships with these specific men.

The law does not and cannot forbid every little lie.

The difference is So Much For Subtlety, that these men were serving police officers. That’s what makes it different to you’re average Joe making up stuff about being an airline pilot or a footballer.
One woman even had a child with one of these liars.
They had superior oficers handling them too.
Quite disgraceful. Heads must roll for this.
Maybe you didn’t see the Dispatches programme. Look it up on 4OD.

I’m not that familiar with YRE, but I’d say The police have a right to gather information about a group that may turn violent/has a history of doing so (with the caveat about ensuring resources are appropriately directed and the same standards are applied across the board) . But they don’t have a right to actively sabotage such a group pursuing a peaceful campaign – chances are such groups will sabotage themselves anyway.

I’d agree with that mostly. I’m not saying I support the police gathering information on political groups – unless they are extremely dangerous. I have no trust in the police’s political judgement. I know of the police questioning someone at Dover when they were coming back from holiday about being a member of a group they had never belonged to. The subtleties of left wing groups and their differences are not really their strongpoint. Go along to a UKuncut demo, and you might find yourself being written up in a police file as a violent anarchist.

The problem I think is that the police have always been overbearing and useless in some areas. And in the black community, they found people who weren’t going to stand for that kind of crap. It was a culture clash. They were bound to antagonise each other. Parts of the West Indian community were struggling by the early seventies, and many had obviously dropped out a bit – or were just finding it hard to get steady work. To the police, West Indian men hanging about on the streets was something to be heavilly policed. The people resented it and fought back. So the police then targetted the known activists.
I do blame the police for quite a bit of that. But on the other hand, they were expected to police petty crime, and illegal drinking shebeens and smoking ganga, put the part of the West Indian community on a collision course with the forces of law and order.

Btw, as much as some West Indian people might have complained and resisted, in the countries where they had come from, the police just shot people dead when there was trouble.

34. Richard Carey

@ 30 Buddy Hell

‘“Libertarians” like you are right-wing.’

According to you, and probably because you think anyone who isn’t left-wing must be right-wing. However there is a clear difference between libertarian and right-wing, as seen in the current Ed Snowden business in America, where libertarians are hailing him and right-wingers are calling for his arrest or assassination. In keeping with my analysis, and contrary to yours, a similar division can be seen on the left, although far too many on the left are taking a partisan line and backing the state against Snowden.

‘The word “libertarian” was effectively stolen from the anarchists by minarchists and other small staters (who want to retain the repressive apparatuses of the state), who originally referred to themselves as “libertarians”. ‘

The word is now used to cover anarchists and minarchists, and political positions in favour of individual liberty. I know some anarcho-communist types complain that it was their word originally, but that’s too bad for them. A similar thing happened to ‘liberal’ especially in America. People understand the word to mean what I’ve said above. If the meaning changed, then another name would have to be used, such as individualist or voluntarist, or even liberal again if that was dropped by the left-wing. As for disputes between anarchists and minarchists, I see these as largely theoretical with the world as it is. I’m happy to argue either side, if somebody buys me a pint.

“Right libertarianism is nothing less than a rationalisation of selfishness.”

Not at all. It’s the rationalisation of a belief that each of us is a free individual, and that we should be free to live as we please, as long as we are not infringing the equal liberty of anyone else. Live and let live is the libertarian principle.

Some libertarians are no doubt selfish, but this is due to their personal morality, not their political views. Lord Acton said that liberty is the highest political end. Nota bene! Not the highest end in life, but only in the realm of politics.

35. Planeshift

@SMFS – rather strange position for a conservative like yourself to not have a problem with the idea a father should have no repsonsibilities to his children.

If Sunny will wear another article there’s a lot to be said about the need for the left to re-define the state as a limited state (rather than necessarily a smaller state) that acts when we all require it to and that is not allowed to develop a life of its own.

Whether the growth of surveillance culture is the result of this (or the result of close ties between big business, politics and the security apparatus, or both) is up for debate.

Well broadly speaking I think there are three factors here:
1. elected legislators are pretty much bound to legislate for ‘more security’ because their jobs rely on a public that doesn’t understand risk;
2. the usual ‘laws’ about bureaucrats and how people behave in groups apply;
3. if the only people the executive or legislators listen to are the security services and companies, they are only hearing one side of the argument.

In any case the formal checks and balances of a democracy like ours do not and cannot function as advertised when a power being exercised is being exercised in secret:

* the voter cannot make an informed decision at the next election because he doesn’t have the information (assuming of course there is a candidate opposed to that exercise of power, if there isn’t then the voter is irrelevant);
* the executive branch is the one exercising the power, so no help from them (and they may have suffered regulatory capture);
* the legislative branch made the law that enables the power (well, in practice sometimes it has not done that, the power is exercised unlawfully and made lawful in retrospect) but from then on is kept in the dark about the exercise of power;
* the judicial branch, if it is involved at all is involved in secret and/or opponents to the power are prevented from participating partially or fully (the executive might assert some privilege to exclude them, or the opponents might not be invited in the first place).

The informal checks and balances, e.g. whistleblowers, journalists, protesters are smeared, undermined, demonised, called traitors and/or hunted down.

So yes, it would be timely and interesting to have a discussion about the way forward.

I agree. There’s a lot that left-liberals need to think about regarding the size and power of the state as well as its checks and balances.

@25 Richard Carey – Sorry it was so obtuse!

My point, which I am butchering from a much longer argument is that the state has the duty to maximise well-being or opportunity or some other duty depending on one’s political views.

It might be that there is an immoral action that actually increases the overall well being of society. It might increase GDP or translate into gains that on-balance are a net benefit.

But if these immoral actions are deemed sufficiently bad by an electorate – if they result in an unacceptable amount of pain and unfairness, then these actions might be legislated against.

In short, the electorate are prioritising fairness and justice over their own economic well-being.

39. So Much For Subtlety

32. damon

The difference is So Much For Subtlety, that these men were serving police officers. That’s what makes it different to you’re average Joe making up stuff about being an airline pilot or a footballer.

I do not see how it makes any difference at all. Unless they were ordered to sleep with these women. People will meet other people. They will have sex with each other. They will form relationships. Even if they are undercover so to speak.

One woman even had a child with one of these liars.
They had superior oficers handling them too.
Quite disgraceful. Heads must roll for this.

Why is it disgraceful? Because we expect policemen to be above things like sex?

35. Planeshift

rather strange position for a conservative like yourself to not have a problem with the idea a father should have no repsonsibilities to his children.

A man can have no responsibilities for his children because the State won’t let him. You cannot be responsible for what you do not control. However there is no evidence these men have not been responsible. At least within the modern definition. As long as they are paying their child support.

Why is it disgraceful? Because we expect policemen to be above things like sex?

That’s ridiculous. You can not be having the state deciding to completely fuck over some innocent person just because it helps out in an investigation.
And as it seems more and more likely, pretty piss poor investigations into the ”terribly dangerous” subversives of London Greenpeace and the eco-activists who climb up onto power station chimneys.

I asked you, did you see the programme?
The woman one cop had a baby with, was dumped when she dropped out of the political scene because she was now a mother with his child. As she was no longer useful to the investigation, he buggered off telling her a pack of lies.

Our police forces can not be doing that.

41. Itsdulltoday

Nice try !!

But on the “elected representitives” at Cabinet-Ministerial levels

Go back to sleep
- whilst they treat you like animals, steal more of your non-rising, inflation busted wages and lie to your faces with non obliga-tory election “promises”

42. So Much For Subtlety

40. damon

That’s ridiculous. You can not be having the state deciding to completely fuck over some innocent person just because it helps out in an investigation.

I agree. You can’t have the State doing it. But can you prevent people from having their own private lives while working for the state? If a man was given orders to have a relationship, sure, there is a problem. But if he met someone and they had sex, whose business is it?

I asked you, did you see the programme?

No.

The woman one cop had a baby with, was dumped when she dropped out of the political scene because she was now a mother with his child. As she was no longer useful to the investigation, he buggered off telling her a pack of lies.

So pretty much the norm for a modern British relationship then. What people do. Maybe they shouldn’t, but they do. If I did this would anyone care? I expect not as it is just the way the working and lower middle classes behave these days. Why shouldn’t he be doing that if that is what he would be doing in his private life anyway?

However there is no evidence these men have not been responsible.

I think I’ll file this away with SMFS’ other comments on “evidence”:

there is no evidence to even suggest Savile was guilty of anything

I didn’t explore the issue of sexual relations between undercover police officers and activists in this piece largely because the issue is so serious that it deserves it’s own article and discussion.
However you may be interested to refer to the Crown Prosecution Service’s own guidelines here which explicitly states that “Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse,” may demonstrate lack of consent.
In short if you obtain sex through misrepresenting your identity that may amount to the sex being non consensual and ought to lead the CPS to consider preferring charges of rape.
Of course if officers like Lambert and Kennedy were aware that they could be charged with rape they might be less likely to blow the whistle, however each woman involved has the right to expect that any alleged offence be properly investigated and charges considered.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

45. Richard Carey

@ 38 McJefferies,

thanks for the illumination, which I understand to be saying the public looks at things deontologically rather than utilitarianistically (!) although I’m not sure I fully grasp the connection to the matter in hand.

I don’t really think the electorate is offered a choice between material well-being for society or justice. Round my way – in one of the safest of safe seats – the only choice is whether or not to bother voting at all.

46. Winston Smith

What will people do to stop surveillance and their freedom & liberty taken from them? They will buy into the “Smart” network to have spy meters in their homes (gas & electric monitoring Smart meter) this is already morphing into a telescreen on the wall (wonders where I read dat….mmm) every appliance transmitting to each other. All data collected, when you come in, go out, what you’re using…even with water when you flush the loo. A remote operator will control your doors and windows – how about that…won’t that be great. As well as being able to switch on/off your gas supply, and electricity. Watch as the marketing spins it around – we don’t have enough, we must cut down, climate change, austerity. You’ll be buying into it all and you’ll be thinking oh well…it saves me work opening the windows and supposing I might forget to close them…at least it’ll keep me safe. That’s what you’ll be doing about your freedom and liberty…pushing another button for another screen to monitor you and to control your life. Pushing the button for more pulsating microwaves to be swallowed up by the environment. That’ll be good for the eco-system. Power to the People.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy: What if the police infiltrated left groups not for the state but for corporations? | moonblogsfromsyb

    [...] via Guest Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/06/25/what-if-the-police-infiltrated-left-groups-not-for-the-state… [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.