UK police agent provocateur trained Irish anarchists

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Darat

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Which mindset do you think most often favors the "bad apple" argument?

The argument was not about "mindsets" - so as I said an ad hom.

Well, for the sake of argument, what would you say anyway?

Which mindset would most often favor the "bad apple" argument?

[HansMustermann]

Which would be relevant if there was any "favouring" involved except as your own strawman. Or, I guess delusion is also possible.

Nobody said that it _is_ a bad apple, or even that it's more likely, or any kind of favouring. Or at least definitely not I. All that was said was, basically, "in addition to X, there are also possibilities Y and Z, let's see some evidence for which of them it is, instead of jumping to preconceived conclusions either way." Is it clearer now?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Well, for the sake of argument, what would you say anyway?

Which mindset would most often favor the "bad apple" argument?

No idea and it doesn't seem at all relevant to determining what has happened in this instance.

[INRM]

foxprorawks

Quote:

A third undercover officer has now come to light:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...ce-spy-cardiff

And now people wonder why I'm always worried about the misuse of surveillance powers...


Jihad Jane

Quote:

Kennedy was well known to protestors. He was intimately involved in their private lives and also took an active role organizing and enabling protest actions.

What was the objective of his activities -- to entrap the anarchists right?


INRM
"In closing, I want to remind you that no matter how I die, it was murder"

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Which would be relevant if there was any "favouring" involved except as your own strawman. Or, I guess delusion is also possible.

Nobody said that it _is_ a bad apple, or even that it's more likely, or any kind of favouring. Or at least definitely not I. All that was said was, basically, "in addition to X, there are also possibilities Y and Z, let's see some evidence for which of them it is, instead of jumping to preconceived conclusions either way." Is it clearer now?

I have presented some evidence in this thread and given ample information to enable readers to educate themselves further, should they so wish. For example, if you click on the words Mark Kennedy in the OP you will find at least fourteen articles directly related to the case.

All of the speculations in your post put the blame on individuals acting beyond their official remit. None explores the possibility of institutional responsibility for a police spy's actions, of which deploying them as agent provocateurs is but one option. Because of this exclusive focus on individual agency, I think it's fair enough to characterize your approach as a "bad apple" argument.

Originally Posted by Darat

No idea and it doesn't seem at all relevant to determining what has happened in this instance.

It may benefit your understanding of the cases like this to work towards having an idea.

Originally Posted by INRM

Jihad Jane



What was the objective of his activities -- to entrap the anarchists right?

We don't know for certain.

Infiltration of dissident groups can perform several functions. Entrapment is one of them. Witness evidence suggests that Kennedy often took a leading role in initiating, carrying out and funding dissident political activity.

[JihadJane]

From the horse's mouth:

***What is clear is that his two most notable disclosures reflect worse on the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. First, by stating that his handlers "sanctioned" his every move, Kennedy has undercut attempts by police to claim he was a "bad apple" who lost control.

Police chiefs have privately tried to distance themselves from the more embarrassing aspects of his operation, claiming Kennedy was a loose cannon. That will be harder to sustain now Kennedy has gone on record saying that he "didn't sneeze without a superior officer knowing about it".***


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...er-eco-warrior

[KoihimeNakamura]

And he wouldn't lie, right?

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

From the horse's mouth:

***What is clear is that his two most notable disclosures reflect worse on the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. First, by stating that his handlers "sanctioned" his every move, Kennedy has undercut attempts by police to claim he was a "bad apple" who lost control.

Police chiefs have privately tried to distance themselves from the more embarrassing aspects of his operation, claiming Kennedy was a loose cannon. That will be harder to sustain now Kennedy has gone on record saying that he "didn't sneeze without a superior officer knowing about it".***


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...er-eco-warrior

From the same article:

Quote:

"The trouble with Mark is you don't know what is real," said Craig Logan, one of the friends who said Kennedy told him about Officer A's true identity. "He was an absolutely extraordinary liar trained by the British state."

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

From the same article:

Yup. Who do you believe?

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Yup. Who do you believe?

I don't really have enough information to form a strong opinion. But generally I would naturally be wary of taking someone at their word if I knew that they were such an accomplished liar.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I don't really have enough information to form a strong opinion. But generally I would naturally be wary of taking someone at their word if I knew that they were such an accomplished liar.

So you don't believe anything the police say?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Begging the question?

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

So you don't believe anything the police say?

Depends on the context, possible motivations for lying, what other evidence there is etc. I know for a fact the police have lied about things to try to save their own hides in the past (eg de Menezes, Tomlinson), so I'm not taking their statements as gospel either.

All I'm saying is that the guy's statement doesn't give us much more reliable information than we had before - ie not much.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

...snip...

It may benefit your understanding of the cases like this to work towards having an idea.

...snip...

"cases like this" - seems a strange why to describe your ad-hom.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I have presented some evidence in this thread and given ample information to enable readers to educate themselves further, should they so wish. For example, if you click on the words Mark Kennedy in the OP you will find at least fourteen articles directly related to the case.

All of the speculations in your post put the blame on individuals acting beyond their official remit. None explores the possibility of institutional responsibility for a police spy's actions, of which deploying them as agent provocateurs is but one option. Because of this exclusive focus on individual agency, I think it's fair enough to characterize your approach as a "bad apple" argument.

Genuine comprehension problems? Or just your usual delusional us-vs-them bullcrap?

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Depends on the context, possible motivations for lying, what other evidence there is etc. I know for a fact the police have lied about things to try to save their own hides in the past (eg de Menezes, Tomlinson), so I'm not taking their statements as gospel either.

All I'm saying is that the guy's statement doesn't give us much more reliable information than we had before - ie not much.

Fair enough. It does, however, give us some information and the fact that Kennedy has chosen to put it on the public record would carry some weight were legal action against the police to emerge from this case.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Genuine comprehension problems? Or just your usual delusional us-vs-them bullcrap?

Are you arguing that your post examined any possibilities beyond the blaming individual police officers departing from their supposedly officially sanctioned activities?

Originally Posted by Darat

"cases like this" - seems a strange why to describe your ad-hom.

I was referring to the case mentioned in the OP and throughout the thread.

Do you really have no idea why an authoritarian mindset or, indeed, the police themselves, would prefer to put the blame for controversial actions on individual police officers rather than their superiors or the policies of the police service itself?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Are you arguing that your post examined any possibilities beyond the blaming individual police officers departing from their supposedly officially sanctioned activities?

What, in your opinion, has this officer done that's wrong?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

...snip...

Do you really have no idea why an authoritarian mindset or, indeed, the police themselves, would prefer to put the blame for controversial actions on individual police officers rather than their superiors or the policies of the police service itself?

You introduced your "bad apple"/authoritarian mindset as an ad hom against what you misunderstood another Member was saying, so I've just been dealing with what you have actually posted.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Darat

You introduced your "bad apple"/authoritarian mindset as an ad hom against what you misunderstood another Member was saying, so I've just been dealing with what you have actually posted.

I think you'v got enough mileage out your "ad hom" ad hom now.

If you have anything substantial to add to the thread please feel free to do so.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I think you'v got enough mileage out your "ad hom" ad hom now.

If you have anything substantial to add to the thread please feel free to do so.

Again you seem to be mistaken - I have not used the fact that you used an ad hom in away that makes it into a an ad hom.

[JihadJane]

Clean-up of covert policing ordered after Mark Kennedy revelations

Home Office minister Nick Herbert says Association of Chief Police Officers will lose control of three teams involved in tackling 'domestic extremism'

"The government said today that a private company run by police chiefs should be stripped of its power to run undercover spies in the wake of a Guardian investigation into the police officer Mark Kennedy, who spent seven years posing as an environmental activist."

[bencg]

According to his own words it would seem that Mark Kennedy was involved in some borderline activities. It appears that he carried out recces on the power station and supplied transport on several occasions. If this is true then it certainly looks like its pretty close to enabling stuff that otherwise wouldn't happen, but its hard to judge without more information.

He also slept with at least a couple of women whilst he was undercover. The police are saying that if he did so then it was against policy and orders, he says that they knew it was happening and videotaped it(!) I find it pretty hard to believe that they would have been taping his bedroom antics but anythings possible.

The real issue I think is the worth of embedding undercover officers in largely peaceful and conscientous enviromental movements. Seven years of Mark Kennedy undercover resulted in 20 protestors being given suspended sentences with no costs against them whilst being praised by the judge for their honestly held principles. These convictions are now being appealed in the light of the undisclosed undercover operation...

I would question the value for money of operations against tree huggers. £250k/year per undercover, wouldn't we rather have these limited assets (total budget for the ACPO undercover section was ~£1.8m) in more dangerous organisations?

Also I would question the operation of these assets, 7 years undercover seems like a fishing expedition. The talking heads (ex undercover police operators and senior managers) they have had on newsnight and the like suggest that normal undercover operations are shorter and more focused with a specific target and goals. So what was going on here?

I'm vaugely hoping that we get an independent inquiry into undercover policing but we know that inquiries are often hamstringed from looking at the wider issues and/or are just simple whitewashes.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by bencg

He also slept with at least a couple of women whilst he was undercover. The police are saying that if he did so then it was against policy and orders, he says that they knew it was happening and videotaped it(!) I find it pretty hard to believe that they would have been taping his bedroom antics but anythings possible.

Is he expected to go seven years without sex?

Originally Posted by bencg

The real issue I think is the worth of embedding undercover officers in largely peaceful and conscientous enviromental movements. Seven years of Mark Kennedy undercover resulted in 20 protestors being given suspended sentences with no costs against them whilst being praised by the judge for their honestly held principles. These convictions are now being appealed in the light of the undisclosed undercover operation...

Yeah, seems like it was a huge waste of time and money, but other than that what's the problem?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Is he expected to go seven years without sex?

Well, he was married.

[bencg]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Is he expected to go seven years without sex?

I don't know. He presumably wasn't undercover 24/7/365, I believe he spent time off back with his wife but I cannot source that right now. In any event I don't think there is any legal issue around this (sex by deception is not a criminal offence AFAIK) but there is an ethical issue which is why there are guidelines saying police undercovers shouldn't sleep with people on assignment.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Yeah, seems like it was a huge waste of time and money, but other than that what's the problem?

As I said before; I would question the value for money of operations against tree huggers. £250k/year per undercover, wouldn't we rather have these limited assets (total budget for the ACPO undercover section was ~£1.8m*) in more dangerous organisations?

(*I have now seen another figure of £5m for this but the point remains that there are limited assests and funds for police undercover work.)

More generally I don't think environmental organisations are criminals or terrorists and shouldn't be targeted as such. The most criminal action planned by this group was to close down a power station for a day. Whilst this is certainly criminal and the police have every right and duty to prevent this there is still a question of proportionality.

There are serious violent crimes committed every day that go unchecked for lack of something. I live in an area of town where you can see very young foreign women obviously drug-dependent working the streets - I would rather the police were infiltrating the criminal gangs that smuggle and enslave these women. Or perhaps the gangs that import cocaine and heroin into the UK every day, there are lots of people that deserve more attention from the police rather than a bunch of tree huggers who prevaricate (you know they had to release >100 people from the arrest because they hadn't yet voted or reached a consensus to commit to the action) about committing a serious but non violent crime every 7 years.

Reading some background on the ACPO undercover unit it was formed to infiltrate the protest groups that were intimidating individuals around the Huntingdon vivisection group in the late 90's. Once these protest groups were split up and went quiet it seems like they needed a new target to justify their existence. As I understand it Scotland Yard has control of undercover operations in more traditional criminal gangs so ACPO had to find a protest group for a target... So the ACPO unit fixated on the environmentalist groups despite a lack of criminal behaivour on their part. I suspect this was driven by 'petty power politics' ie. the ACPO didn't want to give up their new undercover unit and all the funding and status this gave them rather than any public service need. It has now been announced that the ACPO undercover unit is going to move to being under Scotland Yards control (its debatable if this will increase transparency but hopefully they will at least be more professional!).

[JihadJane]

The Metropolitan police was forced to admit today that one of its senior commanders gave false information to MPs when he denied having plain-clothes officers in the crowd at the G20 demonstrations in London in 2009.

Giving evidence to the House of Commons home affairs committee a month after the protest – in which thousands of demonstrators clashed with police – Commander Bob Broadhurst insisted there were no plain-clothes officers among the crowd, saying it would have been too dangerous to do so.

...

However, the Met stood by [Met's commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson]'s assurance to the committee at the same hearing that the force did not use "agents provocateurs" – undercover officers actively fomenting unrest – at the protests around the world leaders' summit in April 2009.

The Met statement said: "Prior to the evidence session, there had been extensive discussion in the media and then at parliamentary committees about allegations that police officers were acting as agent provocateurs in the protests.

"Such behaviour goes completely against how the MPS deploys officers. The commissioner's comments at HASC refer to this point – not to covert deployments."

Sir Paul told the committee at the initial hearing that "the idea that we would put agent provocateurs in the crowd is wholly antithetic to everything I have known about policing for the best part of 34 years".


Plain-clothes Metropolitan police officers were at G20 demonstrations
Metropolitan police admits senior commander gave false information to MPs when quizzed about protests in 2009

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Is he expected to go seven years without sex?

When a police spy has sex with someone he is spying on (a common occurrence, despite what the police are claiming concerning Kennedy), it is psychological and sexual abuse and, therefore, extremely damaging.

Ex-wife of police spy tells how she fell in love and had children with him

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by bencg

I don't know. He presumably wasn't undercover 24/7/365, I believe he spent time off back with his wife but I cannot source that right now. In any event I don't think there is any legal issue around this (sex by deception is not a criminal offence AFAIK) but there is an ethical issue which is why there are guidelines saying police undercovers shouldn't sleep with people on assignment.

If I were to choose an operative to go under-cover and spy on environmental groups, I'd pick someone who genuinely was an ardent environmentalist. That person would find it easier to fit in, easier to make friendships, and be less likely to start framing people if the operation didn't produce results. I think that just because a person is under-cover doesn't mean whatever friendships were formed were not genuine or that he didn't have real affection for women he may have slept with.

Cheating on his wife is another matter.

Originally Posted by bencg

As I said before; I would question the value for money of operations against tree huggers. £250k/year per undercover, wouldn't we rather have these limited assets (total budget for the ACPO undercover section was ~£1.8m*) in more dangerous organisations?

(*I have now seen another figure of £5m for this but the point remains that there are limited assests and funds for police undercover work.)

More generally I don't think environmental organisations are criminals or terrorists and shouldn't be targeted as such. The most criminal action planned by this group was to close down a power station for a day. Whilst this is certainly criminal and the police have every right and duty to prevent this there is still a question of proportionality.

There are serious violent crimes committed every day that go unchecked for lack of something. I live in an area of town where you can see very young foreign women obviously drug-dependent working the streets - I would rather the police were infiltrating the criminal gangs that smuggle and enslave these women. Or perhaps the gangs that import cocaine and heroin into the UK every day, there are lots of people that deserve more attention from the police rather than a bunch of tree huggers who prevaricate (you know they had to release >100 people from the arrest because they hadn't yet voted or reached a consensus to commit to the action) about committing a serious but non violent crime every 7 years.

Reading some background on the ACPO undercover unit it was formed to infiltrate the protest groups that were intimidating individuals around the Huntingdon vivisection group in the late 90's. Once these protest groups were split up and went quiet it seems like they needed a new target to justify their existence. As I understand it Scotland Yard has control of undercover operations in more traditional criminal gangs so ACPO had to find a protest group for a target... So the ACPO unit fixated on the environmentalist groups despite a lack of criminal behaivour on their part. I suspect this was driven by 'petty power politics' ie. the ACPO didn't want to give up their new undercover unit and all the funding and status this gave them rather than any public service need. It has now been announced that the ACPO undercover unit is going to move to being under Scotland Yards control (its debatable if this will increase transparency but hopefully they will at least be more professional!).

I basically agree with all this. I wouldn't bother investigating environmentalists groups unless I had strong reason to suspect them to begin with.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

When a police spy has sex with someone he is spying on (a common occurrence, despite what the police are claiming concerning Kennedy), it is psychological and sexual abuse and, therefore, extremely damaging.

Ex-wife of police spy tells how she fell in love and had children with him

You know, "Laura" really comes across as unbalanced in that article.

And how creepy is it to describe someone as being "under-developed ideologically" or to say he has "holes in his political development"? That's just weird, like she's suspecting him of not having swallowed all of the kool-aid.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

You know, "Laura" really comes across as unbalanced in that article.

And how creepy is it to describe someone as being "under-developed ideologically" or to say he has "holes in his political development"? That's just weird, like she's suspecting him of not having swallowed all of the kool-aid.

It's not weird at all.

How did you feel about the psychological and sexual abuse?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I basically agree with all this. I wouldn't bother investigating environmentalists groups unless I had strong reason to suspect them to begin with.

Suspect them of what?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

It's not weird at all.

So what do you think are marks of being "under-developed ideologically" or having "holes in ones political development"?

Originally Posted by JihadJane

How did you feel about the psychological and sexual abuse?

I don't think you've established that it was either.

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Suspect them of what?

A crime? I don't understand your questions. In general, police should investigate suspected criminal activity. If there is no reason to suspect, they should not investigate.

Was there any reason to suspect these groups of criminal activity?

[geni]

Originally Posted by bencg

I would question the value for money of operations against tree huggers. £250k/year per undercover, wouldn't we rather have these limited assets (total budget for the ACPO undercover section was ~£1.8m) in more dangerous organisations?

Well of the more dangerous organisations the northern irish groups and islamic radicals are covered by MI5/6. Until fairly recently our militiant right wing groups have been too small to infiltrate. I assume the animal rights mob already has undercover people in it. Most of the old football hooligan firms are dead.

The activist environmentalists have been something of a pain of late since they've been putting significant effort into avoiding normal policing of their protests. Their dirrect action stuff does cause some economic damage. The other reason they may be of interest is that there is likely some crossover between their dirrect action groups, the more ah agressive anti globalisation protestors and perhaps some of the animal rights groups.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

So what do you think are marks of being "under-developed ideologically" or having "holes in ones political development"?

In this context it would mean not having the depth of political understanding that informs the protestors' actions and commitment.

Quote:

I don't think you've established that it was either.

None of the women (Kennedy was not the only police spy indulging in sexual activity with their targets) have spoken positively about being deceived in such an intimate way but have described it as psychological damaging, abusive, and a gross betrayal of trust.

Quote:

A crime? I don't understand your questions. In general, police should investigate suspected criminal activity.

If there is no reason to suspect, they should not investigate.

Simple investigation of crimes is not the subject matter of this thread. My question to you was asking which specific crimes you think justify the vast expense of these spy operations and the psychological damage they leave in their wake both to the police spies and to their targets and to the reputation of the police as an ethical and non-political service to society.

Quote:

Was there any reason to suspect these groups of criminal activity?

Yes. Many acts of civil disobedience by non-violent groups trying to save humanity self-destruction involve breaking laws.

[bencg]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

You know, "Laura" really comes across as unbalanced in that article.

And how creepy is it to describe someone as being "under-developed ideologically" or to say he has "holes in his political development"? That's just weird, like she's suspecting him of not having swallowed all of the kool-aid.

Yeah I agree that its strange language, but its the language of a political radical. What made me laugh is the context she gives it; he refused to help pick up litter when they were camping. Whats funny is that she's kind of right, anyone who leaves litter lying around the countryside is being an antisocial dick. Hardly the type to be an environmentalist! This goes towards the lack of professionalism by the undercovers, you'd think they would have been better than that.

[bencg]

Originally Posted by geni

Well of the more dangerous organisations the northern irish groups and islamic radicals are covered by MI5/6. Until fairly recently our militiant right wing groups have been too small to infiltrate. I assume the animal rights mob already has undercover people in it. Most of the old football hooligan firms are dead.

The activist environmentalists have been something of a pain of late since they've been putting significant effort into avoiding normal policing of their protests. Their dirrect action stuff does cause some economic damage. The other reason they may be of interest is that there is likely some crossover between their dirrect action groups, the more ah agressive anti globalisation protestors and perhaps some of the animal rights groups.

There isn't as much crossover as you think. I kind of know some militant anarchist anti-globalisation types and they wouldn't be seen dead with enviromentalist protestors because they are too soft. The anarchists would be harder to infiltrate though, just on the basis of how paranoid they are.

Anyway I'm not saying there is never a good reason to investigate enviromentalists, I'm querying a 7 year operation that yields no results in an age of budget cuts and recession. Besides, as far as I can tell no demonstration or action (causing economic damage or not) was ever stopped by this operation apart from possibly the power station action. And its far from clear that that action was actually going to go ahead, from what I read they were still debating amongst themselves if it was even a good idea when the police swooped in.

[JihadJane]

'Mark Kennedy infiltrated German anti-fascists, Bundestag told'


"Kennedy first broke the law during protests at Heiligendamm, the town near Rostock where the G8 meetings took place in 2007. He later committed arson, Der Spiegel said, during a demonstration in Berlin at which he set fire to containers.

The revelations are published today in Der Spiegel, which says Kennedy's involvement in criminal activity during his time in Germany highlights concerns that he was working as an agent provocateur and not just an observer of the activists.

...

Kennedy, who has already been revealed as having conducted numerous sexual relationships with female activists across Europe, is also revealed to have conducted a long-term, long-distance relationship with a woman living in Berlin.

Such behaviour, said [Germany's federal police chief, Jörg] Ziercke, directly contravenes German laws, which forbid undercover agents conducting "tactical love relationships" with those under surveillance. Ziercke went on to acknowledge that Kennedy's behaviour revealed there were obviously "control-deficits" when it comes to foreign undercover officers."

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Such behaviour, said [Germany's federal police chief, Jörg] Ziercke, directly contravenes German laws, which forbid undercover agents conducting "tactical love relationships" with those under surveillance. Ziercke went on to acknowledge that Kennedy's behaviour revealed there were obviously "control-deficits" when it comes to foreign undercover officers.[/i]"

I think I heard them on John Peel in the 80s...

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I think I heard them on John Peel in the 80s...

:-)

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The revelations are published today in Der Spiegel,

English language SPIEGEL article.

As if we hadn't enough agent provocateurs ourselves, like recently at the demonstrations in Stuttgart.

[JihadJane]

And finally...

Police apologise to women who had relationships with undercover officers

Met pays substantial compensation and acknowledges relationships were ‘an abuse of police power’

Quote:

As part of an out-of-court settlement, Martin Hewitt, an assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police, issued a statement saying : “Thanks in large part to the courage and tenacity of these women in bringing these matters to light it has become apparent that some officers, acting undercover whilst seeking to infiltrate protest groups, entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong.

“I acknowledge that these relationships were a violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma. I unreservedly apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan police service. I am aware that money alone cannot compensate the loss of time, their hurt or the feelings of abuse caused by these relationships.”