Police disguised as Protestor at Bush Demo!!!

[detective-boy]

how many other countries have 42 days, or anything near 42 days?

None as far as I know, but they all have very different rules about when "charge" is possible. And about what is possible after charge (not least further interviewing about new evidence that has come to light). (Go have a look at the Italian investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher - people arrested in Nov 2007 and not charged (in the same way as charge would be referred to here) yet so far as I am aware).

Our combination of rules does not work with ever more complex and time-consuming investigations which simply cannot be speeded up to any great extent. Hence we need to address those rules. For some reason the focus has been on the extension of pre-charge detention periods as opposed to altering the other rules, to allow earlier charge, or to allow post-charge interview about new evidence.

 

[detective-boy]

'People in the Labour movement have often mythologised the state's use of agents provocateurs throughout my 40 years experience and no doubt long before. But, to my recollection, we have never caught one red-handed before.'

Funny!?!!?

Could have sworn loads of posters were claiming it was a matter of "public record" that police used these tactics, that loads had been caught, that there was lots of "evidence".

Have you lot just not told Gorgeous then?

 

[Fruitloop]

What exactly is it that you are in denial about, that the police infiltrate all kinds of organisations from peaceful protestors to football firms, or that once in they sometimes agitate for more violent or illegal action?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Be careful with all that backpedalling, you'll break the chain.

there's no back peedling you massive idiot...

existing legilsation could be used to create a new offence when someone is within the police force and takes and active role in disturbing the peace or inciting a riot... it would require amendments to exisiing acts or more likely a simple preceedent in court which allowed the application of exisiting laws in this instance.

by whatever you are clearly some rabid police supporting loony....

 

[winjer]

existing legilsation could be used to create a new offence when someone is within the police force and takes and active role in disturbing the peace or inciting a riot...

You can't create new offences without new laws.

more likely a simple preceedent in court which allowed the application of exisiting laws in this instance.

You want the courts to be able to create new offences?

by whatever you are clearly some rabid police supporting loony....

I'm about as far from a police supporter as it's possible to be without tattooing ACAB across my forehead.

 

[detective-boy]

What exactly is it that you are in denial about, that the police infiltrate all kinds of organisations from peaceful protestors to football firms, or that once in they sometimes agitate for more violent or illegal action?

As I have repeatedly said, there is, and always has been, infiltration of various groups by undercover officers and informers. That is a key source of intelligence with any group believed to be engaged in breaking the law. There have undoubtedly been instances of infiltration for purely political purposes over the years, though I doubt that the police (as opposed to the spies) have been involved in many of those to any great extent (and I would be very surprised if they were to any extent now).

What I have said I do not believe happens, and I have never seen any evidence or indication of happening, is undercover police officers actually causing crowds to become violent in deomstration situations.

I have acknowledged that there may well have been instances in which the two have come together - where undercover officers have infiltrated a group and, to maintain their cover, they have had to participate in demonstrations and, maybe, if unavoidable, do a bit of very minor shouting and pushing, but there is no wholesale precipitation of violence by the police.

Why can you not read and understand what I have clearly, and repeatedly, posted?

 

[Fruitloop]

Well I think there is a very ill-defined and rather dangerous line between a police officer who has infiltrated a particular group - and some of the targets inevitably are people who have not committed any crime and may not even be intending to - and is on a demonstration or whatever it is where there is a confrontation of some kind, in terms of what kind of behaviour is necessary to maintain a cover (allowing for the moment that this kind of surveillance is necessary at all) and what kind of behaviour actually has an influence on the development of events.

Plenty of football supporters (the 'soft target' on whom many of these new surveillance techniques were originally rehearsed) certainly felt that the undercover cops encouraged them if not into criminal activity in the first place then certainly into more substantial and organised criminality than they would have engaged in on their own. Maybe it's just that the cops were unable to completely suppress their urge to boss people around.

It will certainly be very interesting to see how this particular case develops.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You can't create new offences without new laws.

yes you can with preceedent or reissue of advice by cps etc etc etc... not a great fan of the law are you...

You want the courts to be able to create new offences?

preceedent in effect already does this... do you not understand how this all works, bless...

the parliment makes the law the law lords interpret how this should be applied the cps advise on the level or type of offence which should be considered and the level or weight or tariff to apply by way of guidence as will be used within the circumstance and the judicary then carry out this legisaltion and will in time set a precent as to the intent of the legislation in a given circumstance.

at any point from the inception of the law to it's implamentation the original intent and the final application can be and often are entirely different things you might have noticed how recently anti terrorist laws have been used to snoop on parents inside of school ctachment areas by way of recent promentant example.

I'm about as far from a police supporter as it's possible to be without tattooing ACAB across my forehead.

i see seems to me all to appearent that the thing has gone full circle from hate to love... you class muppet ...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Funny!?!!?

Could have sworn loads of posters were claiming it was a matter of "public record" that police used these tactics, that loads had been caught, that there was lots of "evidence".

Have you lot just not told Gorgeous then?

i hope you've got a big wallet calling Stella Rimington a liar on a publically accessable bulletin board...

 

[detective-boy]

I think there is a very ill-defined and rather dangerous line ...

There is. Undercover officers and informants (sorry - Covert Human Intelligence Sources!) are given detailed instructions on what they can and cannot do. If at any time it becomes necessary for them to go beyond that to maintain their cover, they are pulled, even if it means the operation falls apart. Obviously the individual officers have to make most of the decisions themselves, in highly stressful situations often, and so errors of judgment are not unknown. That, however, is a million miles from routine, deliberate conduct of operations on an improper basis.

As for this case, for the reasons I have stated earlier, I doubt very much indeed whether it will turn out to be of any relevance at all to planned police tactics. Even if it was this guy (and he denies it).

 

[detective-boy]

yes you can with preceedent or reissue of advice by cps etc etc etc... not a great fan of the law are you...

No you can't.

You cannot "create new offences" by the use of precedent of advice by the CPS. Both of those rely on the application of the existing law.

As for sentence tariffs, the senior judiciary (not the CPS) produce sentencing guidance for the Courts (based on their role in determining appeals against sentence) but only within the parameters set by legislation (i.e. the maximum penalty for the offence and any other legislative guidance).

The example you give of "anti-terrorist laws" (RIPA, in fact, absolutely fuck all to do with anti-terrorist legislation ... ) being used to snoop on parents is absolutely nothing at all to do with creation of any new offence. It is not even anything to do with an offence (it is enabling legislation, allowing surveillance to be used). There is absolutely nothing "new" about it at all - except for the fact that the papers (and fuckwits) seem to have gone into one about it.

It seems winjer is more of a fan of the law than you are ...

 

[detective-boy]

i hope you've got a big wallet calling Stella Rimington a liar on a publically accessable bulletin board...

Yet again you state something as a "fact" with no evidence whatsoever.

You got any for this? Where has she stated anything contrary to my posts? Or you still busy looking for some for my earlier question about your claimed "existing laws"?

 

[Fruitloop]

There is. Undercover officers and informants (sorry - Covert Human Intelligence Sources!) are given detailed instructions on what they can and cannot do. If at any time it becomes necessary for them to go beyond that to maintain their cover, they are pulled, even if it means the operation falls apart. Obviously the individual officers have to make most of the decisions themselves, in highly stressful situations often, and so errors of judgment are not unknown. That, however, is a million miles from routine, deliberate conduct of operations on an improper basis.

As for this case, for the reasons I have stated earlier, I doubt very much indeed whether it will turn out to be of any relevance at all to planned police tactics. Even if it was this guy (and he denies it).

Ah, the old 'errors of judgement'. Certainly for a copper to be chanting 'kill the pigs' at his colleagues in front of a group of politicians would constitute such an error if that is indeed what happened. These things are reported all the time by protestors and other targets of infiltration - and have been for decades - but they are not the kind of people who are in general believed.

One of the defendants in the Full Time trial told a journalist that the plain-clothes policeman who stood with them at matches urged them to 'organize bigger groups to cause violence' and added 'They were worse than the hooligans. They wanted trouble'.

Later, when talking to the Leeds supporter, all were angry that the operation had been carried out against them. They maintained the undercover officers had constantly encouraged them to break away from police escorts on the way to matches and to fight, even trying to arrange the fights themselves.

from here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TcUkI8A6QW0C

 

[smokedout]

As for this case, for the reasons I have stated earlier, I doubt very much indeed whether it will turn out to be of any relevance at all to planned police tactics. Even if it was this guy (and he denies it).

got a link for that, I haven't been able to find any follow up to this story at all

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

No you can't.

You cannot "create new offences" by the use of precedent of advice by the CPS. Both of those rely on the application of the existing law.

how would you explaint he recent changes in the implamentation of the exiting laws regarding driveing offense as per new instruction from the cps then dear... that is in essence as well you know a change in legislation by preceedent and or guidence from the cps...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Yet again you state something as a "fact" with no evidence whatsoever.

You got any for this? Where has she stated anything contrary to my posts? Or you still busy looking for some for my earlier question about your claimed "existing laws"?

nope thickie nothing of the sort you're claiming bougsly that there is no exisitng case or 'evedence' of the publically accessable and corroborated police use of agent provocatures as they are illegal and all you other apologist shite.. claiming that it wasn't actualyl publiclly avaible and that it hadn't happened exc ept int he mythology of the left wing culture...

so that would be stella rimington being stooped in left wing mythology and being economical with the truth and you asserting that. in your abolosutist statments...

you're getting hung drawn and quartered here ever considered just giving up your riotiously inaaproprerate love in with your former job and its members if not for your sake but for theirs as you are the positivley worst walkling advert of police public liason on the planet...

 

[detective-boy]

got a link for that, I haven't been able to find any follow up to this story at all

Post 149.

 

[detective-boy]

how would you explaint he recent changes in the implamentation of the exiting laws regarding driveing offense as per new instruction from the cps then dear... that is in essence as well you know a change in legislation by preceedent and or guidence from the cps...

If you'd care to rephrase that into English instead of Rant, I may stand a chance of working out what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[detective-boy]

you're getting hung drawn and quartered here

No, I'm not. What's happening here is that you are demonstrating yet again your total inability to engage in rational discussion and argument.

 

[winjer]

yes you can with preceedent or reissue of advice by cps etc etc etc... not a great fan of the law are you...

No, you can't.

preceedent in effect already does this... do you not understand how this all works, bless...

I've represented myself in magistrate's and crown courts (and won), regularly do legal support, give legal workshops etc, so I think I do have some understanding, thanks.

you might have noticed how recently anti terrorist laws have been used to snoop on parents inside of school ctachment areas by way of recent promentant example.

You obviously didn't notice a long campaign prior to the law being passed predicting exactly that result.

RIPA was never just an anti-terrorist law.

 

[crocker]

crocker

The Policeman in question claims it wasn't him

http://www.bedsonsunday.com/bedsonsunday/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=326743

 

[SpookyFrank]

What I have said I do not believe happens, and I have never seen any evidence or indication of happening, is undercover police officers actually causing crowds to become violent in deomstration situations.

This is true, but only because coppers fail to understand the dynamics of a leaderless group such as you find at demonstrations etc. What the undercover coppers typically do is try and cause a crowd to become violent, fail utterly, get spotted as being quite obviously undercover coppers and subsequently get chased off. This is because real demonstrators don't try and encourage others to engage in violent acts, mostly they just do the whole 'peaceful demonstration' thing. Anyone who does genuinely want to attack coppers will not be standing around attempting to recruit strangers to his or her cause before doing so.

Do you know what causes a demonstration to become violent in the vast majority of cases? Uniformed, armed, shoulder-number-free police officers getting baton-happy. To put it another way; armed, padded and unaccountable blokes with their identities concealed laying into a group of unarmed, peaceful and defenceless men, women and children with metal poles. Agent provocateurs or no, that's shameful enough to be getting on with I reckon.

 

[detective-boy]

Uniformed, armed, shoulder-number-free police officers getting baton-happy.

There is no excuse for no shoulder numbers on an organised scale (odd numbers fall off all the time). It is not accepted by the service generally - hence the move towards sewn on numbers and helmet marking identification. If that is witnessed a complaint should always be made. Even if it is not possible to identify the officer(s) on that particular occasion, it usually identifies a unit and adds to the information available for analysis (and adds to the number of complaints).

But as for your claim that police lines start problems, that is a little disingenious, isn't it? The problems start when the crwod decide they want to go somewhere (in this case Whitehall) where the police have been directed to stop them going. As the crowd continue to advance, usually with increasing pressure, officers are have to use increasing levels of force to prevent them. It is the crowd deciding they want to go somewhere the police are telling them they can't which causes the problem.

 

[butchersapron]

You should join the police ffs!

 

[SpookyFrank]

There is no excuse for no shoulder numbers on an organised scale (odd numbers fall off all the time). It is not accepted by the service generally - hence the move towards sewn on numbers and helmet marking identification. If that is witnessed a complaint should always be made. Even if it is not possible to identify the officer(s) on that particular occasion, it usually identifies a unit and adds to the information available for analysis (and adds to the number of complaints).

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has come across large groups of police officers with their shoulder numbers either covered or removed. I don't know if that's official procedure (in fact I can't imagine it is) but it seems to be what happens more often than not. As for sewn-on numbers, I've encountered them before. Upon asking an officer (not at a 'public order situation' but just on everday duty) why he had no visible numbers he assured me he did, and proceeded to move aside an equipment pouch on his chest, behind which were some small numerals embroidered on his black uniform with dark blue thread. These numbers would only be visible if the officer went out of his way to allow me to see them. Not quite cricket in my view.

The problems start when the crwod decide they want to go somewhere (in this case Whitehall) where the police have been directed to stop them going. As the crowd continue to advance, usually with increasing pressure, officers are have to use increasing levels of force to prevent them. It is the crowd deciding they want to go somewhere the police are telling them they can't which causes the problem.

Those blackguards, how dare they attempt to move down a public thoroughfare

Yes I know the police were only enforcing SOCPA or whichever made up law it is this week, but the fact remains that in so doing they were obstructing people's right to free assembly and provoking them unnecessarily in the process. Had the police allowed a peaceful group to go about their peaceful business peacefully there would have been no problems at all, save perhaps some dented pride at number 10 which as I'm sure you'll agree is a political matter and therefore not a matter for the police to interfere in.

In your opinion where, if anywhere, is the line beyond which the police should no longer follow the orders given to them, nor uphold the laws they are required to? Do you think they should put the universal declaration of human rights before Jacqui Smith's whims for example?

 

[Jazzz]

I love the argument 'they wouldn't use this officer to be an agent provocateur, because if he was discovered, everyone would know he was an agent provocateur, therefore he can't be one'.

i.e. 'this creature looks so like a duck, it must be a chicken'

 

[winjer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ce-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html

An anti-war protestor repeatedly provokes the police at the Bush demo . . . only it turns out the protestor is a policeman!

Postscript:

Mr Galloway said that he had observed Inspector Dreyfus commit various crimes, including incitement to violence, attempted assault on a police officer and several serious public order offences. He called upon the Home Secretary to conduct an inquiry into Inspector Dreyfus’ behaviour. Our posting called upon readers to comment on Mr Galloway’s letter. We made clear that Inspector Dreyfus denied the allegations.

We understand that, as a result of Mr Galloway’s letter, the matter has been comprehensively investigated by the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police, and that their findings have been reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The investigations did not substantiate Ms Whittaker-Khan’s story or the allegations in Mr Galloway’s letter. The CPS has confirmed that there is no case to answer.

We now accept that Christopher Dreyfus was not present at the demonstration and did not engage in any of the criminal behaviour referred to in Ms Whittaker-Khan’s story or Mr Galloway’s letter. We apologize to him for the damage caused to his reputation.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3531

 

[In Bloom]

Edit: nevermind, somehow missed that this is a multipage thread.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I am sure that everyone who made disobliging remarks will be queueing up to apologise sincerely to Inspector Dreyfus for all the upset they have caused.