Undercover policing enquiry

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by teqniq, Oct 8, 2015.

  1. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

    I thought it worth having it's own thread as the enquiry is now underway (it is reckoned to take about three years) dealing with a number of issues covered on different threads here.

    The BBC has an article here naming the key participants

    here is the official Twitter account



    And here is the official website
     
  2. tufty79

    tufty79 1979-2015. R.I.P.

    *thread is now on ignore, DaveCinzano and ddraig *

    :thumbs : :)

    *self management skillz*
     
  3. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Odds are against it finishing in 3 years... what with over 150 core participants, plus any whose status is revised after yesterday's hearing.

    Including, for those who didn't follow the link:

    No-one is on the list with reference to Hillsborough. About a dozen cops are on the list under code-names ("M13" etc).
     
  4. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

    Yeah I thought three years was highly optimistic.
     
  5. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

  6. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Just adding the word "Pitchford" to this thread so I can find it again :)
     
    ddraig likes this.
  7. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered



    Link to the story is at The Fail
     
  8. laptop

    laptop Freudenschade

    Blimey. The case that won't lie down:

    "
    His handlers had given him the task of infiltrating a South London detective agency with alleged links to corrupt detectives.

    It was run by Jonathan Rees, then a suspect in the notorious 1987 murder of his business partner, Daniel Morgan, in South London..."
     
    teqniq likes this.
  9. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

    Yep, proper can of worms.

     
    nogojones likes this.
  10. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

  11. DaveCinzano

    DaveCinzano WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!

    Pressure's on Pitchford now - 133 out of 179 groups and individuals targeted by the spycops who have been granted ‘core participant’ status have joined together to demand the release of the cover names used by the police infiltrators:

    http://campaignopposingpolicesurvei...geted-activists-call-for-list-of-all-spycops/

    Police facing call to publish list of their undercover spies

    You'll notice that this cannot be characterised as ‘just’ lefties, or ‘just’ yogurt-weaving hippies, or ‘just’ Black activists - this is across the board.
     
  12. DaveCinzano

    DaveCinzano WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!

    You may be interested that recently some definitely not choreographed and rehearsed applications from the Met, the NPCC (National Police Chiefs' Council, which replaced ACPO), the National Crime Agency (replaced SOCA) and the Home Office, on the subject of ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ (NCND) and “the legal principles to be applied to applications for restriction orders”, were submitted to Pitchford.

    https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/...e-neither-confirm-nor-deny-principle-NPCC.pdf
    https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/...approach-to-restriction-orders-Met-Police.pdf
    https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/...-legal-approach-to-restriction-orders-NCA.pdf
    https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/...legal-approach-to-restriction-orders-NPCC.pdf
    https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/...pproach-to-restriction-orders-Home-Office.pdf

    The gist of them is that they don't want the public inquiry into the abuses of the secret police spycops programmes to hear evidence from secret police spycops in, erm, public. For that matter, they don't want to name spycops at all.

    The NPCC in particular is rather indignant at the notion of anyone, not least civilians, shining a light on their dark practices.

    (P18, ‘SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE NPCC ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY’)
     
  13. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    It all depends how you view things I suppose.

    I've always been amused by the (predominantly) left wing 'activists', who see absolutely nothing wrong in defying the rule of law with regard to rioting etc, but insist that the 'other side' must always play by the rules.

    Tad hypocritical?
     
    likesfish and A380 like this.
  14. free spirit

    free spirit more tea vicar?

    on one side a few windows may occasionally get broken, on the other the police infiltrators seem to have had a standard MO of forming relationships with, sleeping with, and even having kids with female activists to build / maintain their cover.

    lines were crossed, the ends can not possible be said to justify the means.

    plus most of the organisations involved weren't even those who were particularly at the more radgy end of the spectrum.
     
    Miss-Shelf, Almor, likesfish and 2 others like this.
  15. Kaka Tim

    Kaka Tim Crush the Saboteurs!

    Individuals have had their lives and bodies violated by the state in the most extreme way imaginable - are you suggesting that that is on a par with blocking a road,occupying a corporate office or lobbing a placard stick at a riot cop?
     
    Miss-Shelf, NoXion, Almor and 2 others like this.
  16. DaveCinzano

    DaveCinzano WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!

    Either give specific, tangible examples, and relate them to the subject at hand, or don't bother chirping up.

    AMIRITE?
     
    SpookyFrank and crossthebreeze like this.
  17. 1%er

    1%er Well-Known Member

    I bet this inquire doesn't cover the siege/takeover of the Panamanian Embassy in London that took place in March 1988. A company called "GB Security Group" drove a range rover through the front doors of the Embassy and took control of the building. I can tell you for sure that GB security group was started by 3 ex special forces goons a few months before the incident and closed just after. They operated out of a building in Sutton about 100 yards from the BR station. No-one was ever taken to court over the incident, that was in effect an attack on a foreign country's territory in the center of the British capital. I can also tell you why no-one was taken to court, because one of the people involved was an undercover policeman.

    The police are a law unto themselves and special branch are above the law, you'll only ever hear what they want you to hear. Inquires like this will never go anywhere near getting to the whole truth.
     
    kingfisher and Pickman's model like this.
  18. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    i was under the impression the police swore to uphold the law, yet you seem to see nothing wrong with them ignoring it. we were always told there were political police in eg the ussr, but not the uk. that's bollocks, isn't it, we were all lied to. but some of us lap it up (you).
     
    NoXion likes this.
  19. 1%er

    1%er Well-Known Member

    The Police Attestation
    Before being sworn in as a Constable, and receiving their police powers, all police officers and
    Special Constables must be formally attested before a Justice of the Peace. The officers make the
    following declaration:

    I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and
    truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness,
    integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human
    rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to
    the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and
    prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I
    continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and
    knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to
    law.
     
  20. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    How amazing, the policemen who may have been involved must not have anonymity, but the 'activists' involved must have anonymity. As a level playing field that fails, you would have to nail the ball to the centre spot.
    When I desire your opinion, I will solicit it. So in the meantime...
     
  21. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    I see nothing there that stops infiltration of groups deemed to be working against the interests of the nation.

    It all comes down to the law, or at least the interpretation thereof, and that is what this enquiry can do.

    Law is often an absolute, there is no interpretation possible, it is black or white.

    The basic question here is this; is it reasonable to expect law enforcement agencies to obey the law, to its utmost minutiae, whereas the people they are trying to investigate, break the law, and cover their activities. Do you want the police, et al, to be constantly one step behind, or, do you give them the latitude to break the law, in the cause of the greater good?

    It isn't an easy question, because it is the nature of man to push on that little further, this then becomes the norm, and the process re-starts. So, if you want to give latitude, where do you draw the line. Add into the mix, wheels within wheels, and piss poor standards of supervision, and you end up with policemen sleeping with suspects.

    I honestly don't know on this; not sleeping with suspects, that is beyond the pale; but generally. It comes down to how much you trust your police, both the front-line officers, and the supervisory officers. In my case, sadly, the answer is 'not a lot'.
     
  22. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    Nope. I don't.

    It is however a valid point. Can you/Do you, expect the police/security services to adhere to the law, and always be one step behind?

    Someone snactioned their actions, and would not have done so unless a 'waiver' was in place. One may assume that this goes way up into government.
     
  23. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    by waiver you mean breaking the law
     
  24. 1%er

    1%er Well-Known Member

    Where I live most of the year there are no police, if i encounter them while driving where I stay for the Christmas, the new year and carnival they tend to wave me through because i am "very white" (to them that means someone of influence), but friend I know pay the police almost every month, not a lot around 2 UK pounds at the current exchange rate, just so they don't get hassle at the check points, drink drivers tend to have to pay around 10 pounds to be let off.

    Policing is very different around the would, I think people in the Uk hold the police to a much higher standard than in many other parts of the world, but the police in the UK are corrupted from the top down, they may not take money from people on the street but they are happy to let people of influence get away with breaking the law and cover each-others backs, fit people up and keep the cover-up going until all the senior people involved are retired. Corruption is corruption it has many faces.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2016
  25. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

    The anonymity is to a degree only partial as the people who were targeted by undercover operations are already known to the police.

    E2a to be a bit clearer, I as member of the public expect the highest standards of the police, something upon which I am continually disappointed. In this particular instance they have seen fit to allow officers to form personal relationships with female activists, resulting in children. For this alone they have imo forfeited any right to anonymity.

    Also the OB requesting that parts of the enquiry be held in secret alongside anonymity for officers will result in a travesty of an enquiry; essentially yet another establishment whitewash.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
  26. Greasy Boiler

    Greasy Boiler Well-Known Member

    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
  27. DaveCinzano

    DaveCinzano WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!

    You appear to be confused.

    So far there are just over 200 ‘Core Participants’.

    Of these, 171 are individuals, and 31 are groups or organisations (26 targeted groups, four police groups - Met, NPCC, College of Policing and NCA - plus the Home Office).

    Of the individuals, 154 are those who were targeted by the spycops, fifteen are individual police officers, and two are family members of police officers.

    133 of the spied upon use their full names - just 21 (just over 15.5%) are pseudonymised.

    Of the police officers, only two are named - Mark Kennedy and Peter Francis. In other words, nearly 87% avail themselves of anonymity.

    Both the family members of police officers are anonymous.

    The call is not to have the real names of former UCOs made public, but the avowal of work names used in discredited and largely unlawful spying programmes.

    Edited to correct figures.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
    Almor, Chilli.s, nogojones and 4 others like this.
  28. SpookyFrank

    SpookyFrank Ridin' a Stutz Bearcat, Jim

    It's a bit late for the plod to be worrying about level playing fields tbh. If one thing is clear from the various stories of undercover infiltration, it's that 'sportsmanship' is not a word which features in the police dictionary.

    But then what else would we expect of an orgainsation that has always loved to tool up, get in big gangs and pick fights with defenceless people.
     
    teqniq likes this.
  29. likesfish

    likesfish officaly hardest and most tooled up urbanite:)

    I think only the most acab of types would complain if these actions were against actually dangerous people who were armed planning attacks had used lethal violence etc etc.

    Big boys rules etc but the targets were annoying rather than dangerous they didnt need long term undercover work ffs it wasnt al quida or PIRA it was hippys who wanted to hang off a power station with abseil gear:facepalm:

    This was stasi level of bullshit Obviously the fuckers dont care about the targets civil rights because they must be guilty :facepalm:. Maybe the fuckers will be scared of National Audit office running undercover ops cost I'd love to see the cunts justify what they got up compared with picking up a copy of schnews reading to indynet and sitting in a boring meeting and buying a few pints :mad:
     
  30. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    I don't honestly know. Perhaps someone more versed, can tell us if the police, or other entity can be given 'consent' of some nature, so they can legally disregard the law.

    One wouldn't expect that MI6, if investigating someone, would necessarily get a warrant, to have a clandestine poke through their property.

    It would seem probable that there is some mechanism in place to allow the security services to function in a way that would land an ordinary citizen in the clink.

    This takes me back to the meat of post #21, should the security services have such latitude, and if so, who supervises, and how far are they allowed to go?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice