Caught on tape: police bid to recruit protester as spy

[Fullyplumped]

Just because it's not a legal distinction (as far as I'm aware) doesn't mean its an insignificant one. The minute you start using undercover tactics (or for that matter armoured thugs with big clubs) to attack political dissent, even by people called Matilda, it creates additional issues above and beyond whether law-breaking is involved.

I think it is good that the press are lifting the lid on how the police operate. This story demonstrates that the police don't just wait for people to break the law and then try to find them and arrest them, they go out and try to find who who is likely to break the law before they actually do it. In this, they are using the same tactics as old-fashioned reporters (now a very rare breed). I imagine that despite the shock and horror with which the Guardian and BBC present this, the general public will be quite heartened by this. Especially those member of the general public who are unhappy at seeing their foreign holidays disrupted by well-off students out for a lark, and who have no illusions as to whether Plane Stupid's conduct includes criminal activity. I suppose the nice policeman on the tape approached someone like Matilda because there wasn't someone called Leeanne or Senga.

But Bernie is right, there are additional issues and they ought to be discussed more openly.

 

[agricola]

Just because it's not a legal distinction (as far as I'm aware) doesn't mean its an insignificant one. The minute you start using undercover tactics (or for that matter armoured thugs with big clubs) to attack political dissent, even by people called Matilda, it creates additional issues above and beyond whether law-breaking is involved.

Not really, and the distinction only really exists in the mind of the person who claims justification for their act. In that respect, its not unlike the atypical middle-class motorist who moans about the existance of speed cameras because it catches them speeding.... "the Police shouldnt be doing this to me, they should be out catching proper criminals" etc etc

As I said above, if members of Plane Stupid are going to engage (and be found guilty of) in criminal activity then they have to expect (and indeed, should not be surprised by) an increased Police interest in their activities.

 

[phildwyer]

I think it is good that the press are lifting the lid on how the police operate. This story demonstrates that the police don't just wait for people to break the law and then try to find them and arrest them, they go out and try to find who who is likely to break the law before they actually do it.

And then they encourage them to break the law, and in fact assist them in breaking the law. It's called "entrapment" over here. Not that I mind seeing Plane Stupid entrapped particularly.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Not really, and the distinction only really exists in the mind of the person who claims justification for their act. In that respect, its not unlike the atypical middle-class motorist who moans about the existance of speed cameras because it catches them speeding.... "the Police shouldnt be doing this to me, they should be out catching proper criminals" etc etc

As I said above, if members of Plane Stupid are going to engage (and be found guilty of) in criminal activity then they have to expect (and indeed, should not be surprised by) an increased Police interest in their activities.

Well, they explicitly aim at changing government policy through both their non-violent direct actions and public relations activities, so I think you'd have to work pretty hard to make a convincing case that they weren't political.

 

[SpookyFrank]

As I said above, if members of Plane Stupid are going to engage in (and be found guilty of) criminal activity then they have to expect (and indeed, should not be surprised by) an increased Police interest in their activities.

Post corrected for grammar. Would correct for logic but I simply don't have the time to put in that much spadework.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Well, they explicitly aim at changing government policy through both their non-violent direct actions and public relations activities, so I think you'd have to work pretty hard to make a convincing case that they weren't political.

Bernie, I don't think anyone's saying they're not political. It's just that disrupting airports in pursuit of a political objective is usually criminal too.

I enjoyed your term "public relations activities" - People of Aberdeen (or whatever), we are spoiling your foreign holiday because we care about the environment, and we hope that in doing so you will be persuaded to support our cause too."

 

[agricola]

Well, they explicitly aim at changing government policy through both their non-violent direct actions and public relations activities, so I think you'd have to work pretty hard to make a convincing case that they weren't political.

Have I tried to claim that? In any case, whether or not their activities are considered political by themselves is an irrelevance, since the issue at hand is whether the police should be involved in investigating groups whose members have committed criminal activities.

Given the cost of some of the "non-violent direct actions" carried out by the group, both directly and indirectly, I would say they should be.

Post corrected for grammar. Would correct for logic but I simply don't have the time to put in that much spadework.

Yes, its completely illogical that people who commit crimes should be at risk of increased police interest in their activities.

Perhaps you should stick to correcting grammatical errors.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

And then they encourage them to break the law, and in fact assist them in breaking the law. It's called "entrapment" over here. Not that I mind seeing Plane Stupid entrapped particularly.

Well that's a point isn't it? There are a number of US and if memory serves Canadian cases of informants in generally non-violent groups encouraging violence to please their paymasters.

It's pretty obvious how that would tend to happen I think ...

In a shady pub -

Tout: 'Well, they're planning to stage an eco-picnic and paint little children's faces while singing Kumbaya. Can I have the money you promised me to pay off my student grant now please?'

Plod: 'Is that really the best you can do you wanker? Here's your bus fare, fuck off and don't come bother me again until you've got something that'll impress the Chief Super and get me promoted.'

Later at an eco-hippy gathering -

Tout: 'So comrades, I know where we can get some thermite. Let's sabotage such and such with it.'

 

[Kaka Tim]

Plane stupid - and other environemental groups - are not being targetted becasue they break the law or not. They are being targetted by the secret police beacsue of their ideological beliefs and political activity - in the same way that left wing groups, CND and militant trade unionists were (and probably still are) targetted in the past - e.g. MI5 were used to help break the miners strike.

That is its completely distinct from police information gathering activites being used against organsied criminals.

Most people are supportive of the spooks being used agasint the like of Al Queada or the IRA pre-good friday agreement.

The same tactics being used against anyone deemed by the state as 'idelogically threatening' should be unacepptable for obvious reasons.

Just becasue the state have always done this doesn't make it right.

If anything - in these days of the creeping police survilance state where it is ever easier for the state to monitor all your actions and movement - it is even more disturbing.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Have I tried to claim that? In any case, whether or not their activities are considered political by themselves is an irrelevance, since the issue at hand is whether the police should be involved in investigating groups whose members have committed criminal activities.

Given the cost of some of the "non-violent direct actions" carried out by the group, both directly and indirectly, I would say they should be. <snip>

It certainly sounded like you were claiming that they weren't political above, but that's not really the point I'm getting at.

What I'm getting at is that there is an extra dimension here beyond crime vs not-crime. Targeting political dissent has implications for democracy. This is true whether the police target it with violence as they did at the G20 demos or with informers and similar tactics. It's an issue because such actions have a 'chilling effect' on dissent.

I would argue that such a chilling effect is a potentially serious matter for the health of our democracy, particularly when the police and government show absolutely no signs of seeing why there might be any problem with it.

 

[likesfish]

if your going to disrupt infra structure and or legal stuff don't be surprised if the police try to find out what your plans are.
there has been violence and damage committed at mayday demos before.
Certain left wing groups have glamorized violence admittedly been completely fucking useless. But the state would be wrong to just write them off without trying to find out a bit more info before writing them off as harmless.
I've been telling my local leftie I get a stipend to report on him for mi5 for years pity I missed out

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes, its completely illogical that people who commit crimes should be at risk of increased police interest in their activities.

Depends upon your definition of 'police interest in your activities' I suppose. If that phrase amounts to 'having the police and/or their stooges set you up' then yes, I'd say it's illogical. I belong to the old school in that I believe people shouldn't get in trouble for their transgressions until said transgressions have actually been committed. And let's not insult anyone's intelligence by implying that environmental protestors pose a danger to the public that is proportionate to the police 'interest' in them. If you coppers ever actually spoke to members of the community you'd find that people are not scared of hippies hanging banners off bridges nearly so much as they're scared of their local gang bangers. The police themselves have proved themselves capable of far worse behaviour than environmental protestors, the majority of whom wouldn't even raise a hand to defend themselves from attack never mind harm a member of the public, perhaps you lot should be infiltrating yourselves instead.

 

[agricola]

It certainly sounded like you were claiming that they weren't political above, but that's not really the point I'm getting at.

What I'm getting at is that there is an extra dimension here beyond crime vs not-crime. Targeting political dissent has implications for democracy. This is true whether the police target it with violence as they did at the G20 demos or with informers and similar tactics. It's an issue because such actions have a 'chilling effect' on dissent.

I would argue that such a chilling effect is a potentially serious matter for the health of our democracy, particularly when the police and government show absolutely no signs of seeing why there might be any problem with it.

Just because a person or group feels politically justified in doing something should not mean they get to cost other people hundreds of thousands of pounds, as well as winding thousands of people up, without there being legal consequences to it.

Nor is it an attack on democracy when such people are subject to investigation by the Police, indeed you could just as easily make the distinction that to allow a political defence to crimes would be a far more dangerous state of affairs.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Depends upon your definition of 'police interest in your activities' I suppose. If that phrase amounts to 'having the police and/or their stooges set you up' then yes, I'd say it's illogical. I belong to the old school in that I believe people shouldn't get in trouble for their transgressions until said transgressions have actually been committed. And let's not insult anyone's intelligence by implying that environmental protestors pose a danger to the public that is proportionate to the police 'interest' in them. If you coppers ever actually spoke to members of the community you'd find that people are not scared of hippies hanging banners off bridges nearly so much as they're scared of their local gang bangers. The police themselves have proved themselves capable of far worse behaviour than environmental protestors, the majority of whom wouldn't even raise a hand to defend themselves from attack never mind harm a member of the public, perhaps you lot should be infiltrating yourselves instead.

Well yes, there is that question of proportionality isn't there? I doubt anyone would have a problem with the cops seeking to recruit informants in groups like the Provos or the Dewsbury branch of Al Qaeda. The nature of the threat posed by such groups to the general public pretty clearly takes priority over the threat to democracy posed by the police targeting dissent.

Environmental NVDA groups don't threaten the public with any more than a slight inconvenience now and then. They do threaten profits a bit more, but again, the impact is still fairly minor in the general scheme of things. So the case for employing secret police tactics is in my opinion a lot weaker here.

The issue right now though is that there is zero acceptance by the cops, the spooks or the government that there is any issue at all with using secret police tactics in a democracy. It's not that there's a public debate in which different sides disagree about proportionality, it's a lack of acceptance in official circles that there's even an issue here. That's deeply worrying IMO.

 

[agricola]

Depends upon your definition of 'police interest in your activities' I suppose. If that phrase amounts to 'having the police and/or their stooges set you up' then yes, I'd say it's illogical.

Did you even read the original report, never mind the transcripts?

I belong to the old school in that I believe people shouldn't get in trouble for their transgressions until said transgressions have actually been committed.

Those transgressions had already been committed by the time this person was approached by the Police, indeed she had only just been released on bail herself.

And let's not insult anyone's intelligence by implying that environmental protestors pose a danger to the public that is proportionate to the police 'interest' in them. If you coppers ever actually spoke to members of the community you'd find that people are not scared of hippies hanging banners off bridges nearly so much as they're scared of their local gang bangers.

Actually, the people affected by this - the passengers at the airports - were concerned about this, largely because of the cost to themselves. As for "posing a danger to the public", who has claimed this?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Just because a person or group feels politically justified in doing something should not mean they get to cost other people hundreds of thousands of pounds, as well as winding thousands of people up, without there being legal consequences to it.

How about the Government? They've cost everyone in the country £17,000 each and counting and wound up pretty much everyone in the UK in the process. Those cunts are causing immeasurably more chaos than hippies ever have or ever will, when can we expect there to be a knock at Gordon Brown's door? There's a copper stood there anyway, you'd only have to have him turn round.

Whatever your justification for the double standard, the truth is that is political. The police serve the state, not the public and not the law (which the state can mould to its will anyhow, or simply choose to ignore).

 

[agricola]

How about the Government? They've cost everyone in the country £17,000 each and counting and wound up pretty much everyone in the UK in the process. Those cunts are causing immeasurably more chaos than hippies ever have or ever will, when can we expect there to be a knock at Gordon Brown's door? There's a copper stood there anyway, you'd only have to have him turn round.

Whatever your justification for the double standard, the truth is that is political. The police serve the state, not the public and not the law (which the state can mould to its will anyhow, or simply choose to ignore).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://kindertrespass.com/index.asp

These people committed the crime of trespass and by doing so eventually achieved changes in the law that most reasonable people would probably claim were laudable. Very much like what environmental NVDA activists are trying to do today. How would it have served the public good to use secret police tactics against them?

 

[SpookyFrank]

As for "posing a danger to the public", who has claimed this?

I felt it was implied from the amount of trouble the police were willing to go to that the safety of members of the public was under threat. Otherwise the police were just being twats.

 

[agricola]

I felt it was implied from the amount of trouble the police were willing to go to that the safety of members of the public was under threat. Otherwise the police were just being twats.

Yes, one DC from a county force. and a minion, approaching a person who had only just been released from custody and asking them to be an informant really is a great deal of trouble for them to go to, and clearly demonstrates the outrageous risk that Plane Stupid represent.

 

[agricola]

http://kindertrespass.com/index.asp

These people committed the crime of trespass and by doing so eventually achieved changes in the law that most reasonable people would probably claim were laudable. Very much like what environmental NVDA activists are trying to do today. How would it have served the public good to use secret police tactics against them?

How much economic damage did the Kinder Trespass cause? How many people did it discomfort?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How much economic damage did the Kinder Trespass cause? How many people did it discomfort?

Ah, OK. So whether it's ok to use undercover tactics and informants against a pressure group is not justified solely by the possibility of any crime at all. It's a question of the impact of their illegal actions on others right?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Let's walk you through it slowly this time. You said:

Just because a person or group feels politically justified in doing something should not mean they get to cost other people hundreds of thousands of pounds, as well as winding thousands of people up, without there being legal consequences to it.

Now lets examine just how much of that can be applied to our government:

-Politically justified; yep politicians tend to be politically justified (or at least they claim to be) despite the fact that our fearless leader remains devoid of a democratic mandate.

-Cost other people loads of money; yep, the powers that be have just flushed a mind boggling sum of everyone's past, present and future income down the economic shitter.

-Winding people up; Jon Snow's certainly upset about it all and I could name a few other people as well, just hand me a phone book.

So then, it seems our government fits all the criteria which you suggest constitute grounds for 'legal consequences'. And yet at the time of writing Brown and friends are in no danger of being arrested or even politely questioned. How strange.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes, one DC from a county force. and a minion, approaching a person who had only just been released from custody and asking them to be an informant really is a great deal of trouble for them to go to, and clearly demonstrates the outrageous risk that Plane Stupid represent.

What about the sums of money the informant was to be paid?

 

[agricola]

Ah, OK. So it's not just crime vs not-crime. It's a question of impact right?

The criminal aspect of it was dealt with, though (people being imprisoned, after all)- and that was a response to your contention that the trespass was "much like what environmental NVDA activists are trying to do today", which it clearly isnt.

 

[agricola]

What about the sums of money the informant was to be paid?

The amount of money that was never identified, and which one officer said was dependent on what information was recieved?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The criminal aspect of it was dealt with, though (people being imprisoned, after all)- and that was a response to your contention that the trespass was "much like what environmental NVDA activists are trying to do today", which it clearly isnt.

The crime in question is trespass and a bit of property damage in either case.

So if suborning informants is justified in one case, surely it's justified in the other? Unless of course the impact of their illegal actions is also relevant.

 

[agricola]

So then, it seems our government fits all the criteria which you suggest constitute grounds for 'legal consequences'. And yet at the time of writing Brown and friends are in no danger of being arrested or even politely questioned. How strange.

That could be because they havent obviously broken a law (like, say, 50 of them closing an airport), but by all means crack on with your breaking-down of arguments and grammatical correction.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The amount of money that was never identified, and which one officer said was dependent on what information was recieved?

'Tens of thousands' are mentioned. I can't imagine the police would lie about something like that, what with their unerring moral compasses and mortal fear of conviction for perjury...

 

[agricola]

The crime in question is trespass and a bit of property damage in either case.

"A bit of property damage" is misleading, given that we are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds of lost revenue / rearranged flights in the Stansted case alone. Nor did the trespass in the Kinder incident have the affect of disrupting thousands of people who wanted to use the moor.

So if suborning informants is justified in one case, surely it's justified in the other? Unless of course the impact of their illegal actions is also relevant.

It is relevant to a degree, but that is more because of the nature and seriousness of the crime than because of the political aspect to it, and as a result is covered in the pre-existing guidelines for the use of informants.