Caught on tape: police bid to recruit protester as spy

[agricola]

'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...

A great quote out of context. What it actually went like:

Officer 1: "What you choose to do with that ... Can I tell you Tilly, we actually have people working, who actually take the money and they give it to charity, because what they're doing is moral, they're doing it for a moral reason. So they give the money to, maybe Cancer Research, Save the Whale, whatever. Other people use it because believe it or not they actually need it. Because their own jobs aren't well paid."

Officer 2: "Don't pay it into a bank account Tilly, because that leaves an audit trail - and an audit trail can compromise you. You just get it in your hand. You don't want to take cash in hand?"

Tilly: "And what kind of figures are you paying other people?"

Officer 1: "Oh you'd be surprised Tilly."

Officer 2: "Years gone by people have been paid tens of thousands of pounds."

Tilly: "Yeah that's not anything I think Plane Stupid is worth. That's not what we're talking is it? Obviously."

Officer 2: "You've got to justify it in your own mind. We can't make that decision for you."

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> 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.

OK, so. Having established that, let's also establish the other side of the case.

I argue that the police targeting political dissidents by using informants and similar tactics has a chilling effect on political freedom in the UK.

Would you disagree with that? If so why? You'll note that I don't argue that it's never justified, merely that it needs to be justified for a given case.

 

[Fullyplumped]

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

The crime that Plane Stupid people invading an airport and causing staff and passengers to be alarmed, upset or annoyed would be charged with might well be breach of the peace.

 

[SpookyFrank]

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.

OK fine, have it your way. You want broken laws, let's apply your criteria to your pals shall we? That quote again:

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.

-Politically justified: yep, the police tend to stick pretty closely to the idea that the law is the supreme authority and upholding it is justification for whatever they do (a slightly paradoxical view given that the law is constantly changing and contradicts itself more and more often).

-Cost hundreds of thousands: the annual increase in the contribution I am required to make to my local constabularly via council tax seldom fails to be around double the level of inflation. Would that other public services had such generous funding.

-Winding thousands of people up: a police kettle is specifically designed for that very purpose, as is the standard-issue police attitude to members of the public. Show me a person who hasn't got a story about coppers pissing them off for no reason and I'll show you a four year old.

Not forgetting that shiny new criterion of yours, breaking the law: unprovoked acts of violence, collective punishment, detention without access to food or water, shooting innocent people, entrapment and criminal smugness are but a sample of the incredibly dodgy behaviour engaged in by certain members of the police force, in some cases according to official guidelines and/or direct orders from superior officers.

As for lack of legal consequences, well that's legendary. From that bloke who got his head kicked in by three coppers and was then made to pay them damages for their trouble to the fact that a jury was prevented from finding the police legally culpable for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Remind me again how many coppers got in trouble for Hillsborough? Was it none? I think it was none...

 

[agricola]

OK, so. Having established that, let's also establish the other side of the case.

I argue that the police targeting political dissidents by using informants and similar tactics has a chilling effect on political freedom in the UK.

Would you disagree with that? If so why?

Again, they are not being targetted because of their "political dissidence", they are being targetted because of - in this case - the criminal activities of some of their members.

 

[SpookyFrank]

"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.

So when can we expect the people resonsible for Heathrow terminal 5 to be locked up? If screwing up people's holiday plans is a crime then those clowns should be on multiple life terms by now.

There's also the fact that a holiday to the Maldives in twenty years time could be terminally inconvenienced by the fact that the entire country is underwater.

 

[agricola]

The crime that Plane Stupid people invading an airport and causing staff and passengers to be alarmed, upset or annoyed would be charged with might well be breach of the peace.

It was actually aggravated trespass.

 

[agricola]

<mindless droning snipped>

Perhaps you should try and stick to the thread and arguments related to it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Perhaps you should try and stick to the thread and arguments related to it.

I think it's entirely relevant to the thread to question the necessity of infiltrating peaceful protest groups when there are organisations in the country who cause immeasurably more trouble and yet face no such police attention. I was merely trying to point out that the reasons you give as justification for pre-emptive action against protestors hold just as much, if not more water when they're applied to the police instead.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It was actually aggravated trespass.

A crime so heinous it was only invented 15 years ago.

 

[agricola]

I think it's entirely relevant to the thread to question the necessity of infiltrating peaceful protest groups when there are organisations in the country who cause immeasurably more trouble and yet face no such police attention. I was merely trying to point out that the reasons you give as justification for pre-emptive action against protestors hold just as much, if not more water when they're applied to the police instead.

No, you were just ACABing from a variety of sources in a vain attempt to link it to this, just as you were misquoting people before, and making daft comments about grammar correction before that. Please try and stick to the thread.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Again, they are not being targetted because of their "political dissidence", they are being targetted because of - in this case - the criminal activities of some of their members.

It doesn't matter for my purposes that the justification that the police are using to target them is that they've been known to commit certain crimes. I don't dispute that.

What I am arguing is that by targeting a group of people who are explicitly acting to influence policy, an additional and separate effect comes into play. That is, the chilling effect on political freedom of what I've described as 'secret police' tactics*

I suggest to you that 'it's a crime, end of story' is a disingenuous way of avoiding the painful truth, that politicised policing presents a danger to our political freedom.

Sometimes (see for example the Kinder Scout trespass), a little bit of NVDA is a reasonable cost for society to bear for a greater good. The question is one of proportionality.

Now you've agreed (I think) that the impact of any illegal political action is relevant to whether secret police tactics are justified. I'd happily agree with that. I'd also claim though that the use of secret police tactics, with their chilling effect on our political freedoms, has to be justified in terms of impact.

If you're claiming that people being inconvenienced by airport delays and the related costs to business justify methods of political policing that tend to erode our political freedoms, well I'd disagree with you, but I wouldn't think you were ignoring the political dimension of such actions by the police.

* I'll happily come up with a more long-winded definition if you choose to object to that term, but we both know what I mean and why many people are likely to have a problem with it, so I suggest that's a blind alley.

 

[SpookyFrank]

No, you were just ACABing from a variety of sources in a vain attempt to link it to this, just as you were misquoting people before, and making daft comments about grammar correction before that. Please try and stick to the thread.

When did I misquote anybody?

Maybe I've strayed slightly off topic but hypocrisy annoys me so much that I tend to lose focus. Although I'd hate for you to think I was engaging in personal attacks against you, it's not your fault that to be a police officer one must necessarily be a hypocrite and a gifted proponent of doublethink.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

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.

Jeffrey Archer is still a member of the Conservative Party.

This group's hardcore are holed up here:

30 Millbank
London
SW1P 4DP


Don't forget to charge yer taser.

 

[agricola]

When did I misquote anybody?

Maybe I've strayed slightly off topic but hypocrisy annoys me so much that I tend to lose focus. Although I'd hate for you to think I was engaging in personal attacks against you, it's not your fault that to be a police officer one must necessarily be a hypocrite and a gifted proponent of doublethink.

Apologies, when I wrote "misquote" I should have said "quote out of context", and the example was further up. As for your allegations of hypocrisy, thats a bit rich, and a lot wrong.

 

[agricola]

Jeffrey Archer is still a member of the Conservative Party.

This group's hardcore are holed up here:

30 Millbank
London
SW1P 4DP


Don't forget to charge yer taser.

Didnt he go to prison for his activities? Didnt Aitken?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is though, have you noticed that the government, the police and the spooks absolutely don't want to even notice that there's any issue with using these sorts of tactics against political dissent. That it has a 'chilling effect' on dissent. Even Agricola, who is easily the most reasonable cop on here has spent several pages avoiding any engagement whatsoever with that issue.

 

[In Bloom]

"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.

So the profitability of an airline takes precedence over the ecosystem that we all depend on for life?

Not that I agree with the politics or tactics of Plane Stupid, mind you.

 

[Barking_Mad]

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.

In association with another part of the same law - this is classed as a terrorist act.

 

[sus]

He is right though, and the question of differentation between the criminal and protest world is sort of moot, given that Plane Stupid have been involved in some protests that have broken the law (Stansted being the most obvious).

He is right though, and the question of differentation between the criminal and the police world is sort of moot, given that the police have been involved in activity that has broken the law (G20 being the most obvious).

Or you could add politicians, councillors, lawyers, CEO's of most corporations, etc etc etc.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Didnt he go to prison for his activities? Didnt Aitken?

Yep Archer went down and came back and is now ensconced back in the fold. He even wrote a book about his time inside, doesn't seem like he's been rehabilitated to me.

Christ knows what they're planning on doing next.

 

[agricola]

Thing is though, have you noticed that the government, the police and the spooks absolutely don't want to even notice that there's any issue with using these sorts of tactics against political dissent. That it has a 'chilling effect' on dissent. Even Agricola, who is easily the most reasonable cop on here has spent several pages avoiding any engagement whatsoever with that issue.

Thats because the argument doesnt really stand up.

In this case the group involved has got involved with committing large-scale (50+ at Stansted) acts which have caused quite a bit of economic damage and discomfited thousands of people, which of course resulted in criminal convictions. Given that, and the high-profile nature of some of the other incidents, it is not unusual or especially chilling that the Police take an interest in their activities, even including quite a low-level attempt to recruit an informant within the group.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

In this case the group involved has got involved with committing large-scale (50+ at Stansted) acts which have caused quite a bit of economic damage and discomfited thousands of people, which of course resulted in criminal convictions.

This is not an invalid argument*, but information about criminal activities was not what the "Glasgow" police were asking for:

"Feeding to us what's going on in the groupings - the actual dynamics of the groupings, who's saying what, who's doing what, who's running it, who's not running it."

The problem here is that the police seem incapable of distinguishing between valid political views and criminal activity.

* History has shown countless situations where civil disobedience has been necessary to change things for the better, from the Tolpuddle martyrs, through the suffragettes to avoiding paying poll tax. FWIW I think that it would be as wrong of the police to make a political judgement on allowing illegal acts as it is for them to overreact to them.

 

[_pH_]

It was actually aggravated trespass.

A crime so heinous it was only invented 15 years ago.

Invented with a very political purpose too.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thats because the argument doesnt really stand up.

In this case the group involved has got involved with committing large-scale (50+ at Stansted) acts which have caused quite a bit of economic damage and discomfited thousands of people, which of course resulted in criminal convictions. Given that, and the high-profile nature of some of the other incidents, it is not unusual or especially chilling that the Police take an interest in their activities, even including quite a low-level attempt to recruit an informant within the group.

So, let me understand this, when you say 'the argument doesn't stand up' you are claiming that suborning informers in environmental protest organisations and similar tactics have no 'chilling effect' whatsoever on political activity in this country?

I understand what you say in the second paragraph, but that's a justification for the police action, of greater or lesser weight. It doesn't address in any way that I can see the question of whether a 'chilling effect', which is entirely separate from any possible legal justification is or is not also present. It almost sounds like you are agreeing that it's present but think the impact is trivial compared to the impact on business or something. Which is it? Is there a chilling effect or not?

 

[sus]

moral imperative v moral relativism ... who gives a fuck? certainly not the Po-lease .. "just following orders" ..sorry copper; heard it all before

 

[agricola]

So, let me understand this, when you say 'the argument doesn't stand up' you are claiming that suborning informers in environmental protest organisations and similar tactics have no 'chilling effect' whatsoever on political activity in this country?

I understand what you say in the second paragraph, but that's a justification for the police action, of greater or lesser weight. It doesn't address in any way that I can see the question of whether a 'chilling effect', which is entirely separate from any possible legal justification is or is not also present. It almost sounds like you are agreeing that it's present but think the impact is trivial compared to the impact on business or something. Which is it? Is there a chilling effect or not?

But there will always be something of a chilling effect anyway because of the nature of the acts being committed - either criminal (as with Stansted) or civil-legal (as Ryanair were threatening to do) and the likely consequences of that will (and should) cause people to think first. Are you really claiming that any "chilling effect" is wrong for a democracy?

Obviously, if a group is not doing these things then it is not really justifiable to have the state use paid informants against them, but in this case those acts had been committed and Police interest (including this, which looks very low-level) was to be expected, and should be understood in the context of those acts.

 

[sus]

Fucking suffragettes eh Agricola? For sure you know your wife/gf doesn't know what she's voting for.

http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_SuffragetteActions_Rosen.htm

"26 Guerrillists

During the final week of January 1913, Mrs Pankhurst said that the suffragettes were `guerrillists', warranted in employing all the methods of war; human life would be held sacred, but `if it was necessary to win the vote they were going to do as much damage to property as they could "

Criminals and terrorists one and all.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

Police interest (including this, which looks very low-level) was to be expected, and should be understood in the context of those acts.

There was nothing in the transcripts that I have read to suggest that the police were interested in the criminal activity of the group - they were asking for information that was wholly of a political nature. See my previous post. (sorry, I don't know how to link to 2 other posts in one post.)

 

[Zapata]

The problem here is that the police seem incapable of distinguishing between valid political views and criminal activity.

Had this been a member of the BNP that had been approached to become a tout would there be such outrage ? or should the police check with you to see which political views are in your view valid ?

The BNP have political views and some of it's members commit crime same goes for Plane Stupid. It's good to know that the rozzers have and are recruiting touts IMO.