Police State

[hibsbollah]

Crazy goings on:bitchy: its all getting a bit scary if you ask me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/24/strathclyde-police-plane-stupid-recruit-spy

Police caught on tape trying to recruit Plane Stupid protester as spy

Climate change activist taped men who offered cash for information about group's members and activities



Undercover police (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/police) are running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations who secretly feed them intelligence in return for cash, according to evidence handed to the Guardian.
They claim to have infiltrated a number of environmental groups and said they are receiving information about leaders, tactics and plans of future demonstrations.

The dramatic disclosures are revealed in almost three hours of secretly recorded discussions between covert officers claiming to be from Strathclyde police, and an activist from the protest group Plane Stupid, whom the officers attempted to recruit as a paid spy after she had been released on bail following a demonstration at Aberdeen airport last month.

Matilda Gifford, 24, said she recorded the meetings in an attempt to expose how police seek to disrupt the legitimate activities of climate change activists. She met the officers twice; they said they were a detective constable and his assistant. During the taped discussions, the officers:
• Indicate that she could receive tens of thousands of pounds to pay off her student loans in return for information about individuals within Plane Stupid.
• Say they will not pay money direct into her bank account because that would leave an audit trail that would leave her compromised. They said the money would be tax-free, and added: "UK plc can afford more than 20 quid."
• Accept that she is a legitimate protester, but warn her that her activity could mean she will struggle to find employment in the future and result in a criminal record.
• Claim they have hundreds of informants feeding them information from protest organisations and "big groupings" from across the political spectrum.
• Explain that spying could assist her if she was arrested. "People would sell their soul to the devil," an officer said.
• Warn her that she could be jailed alongside "hard, evil" people if she received a custodial sentence.

The meetings took place in a Glasgow police station last month and in a supermarket cafe on Tuesday. Gifford used a mobile phone and device sewn into her waistcoat to record what they described as a "business proposal" that she should think of as a job.

They intimated that in return for updates on Plane Stupid's plans she could receive large sums of money in cash.

When lawyers acting for Plane Stupid contacted Strathclyde police this week to establish the identities of the detective constable, they were initially told by the human resources department there was no record of his name.

But when the Guardian contacted the force, they acknowledged officers had had meetings with Plane Stupid activists.

In a statement last night, assistant chief constable George Hamilton said the force had "a responsibility to gather intelligence", and such operations were conducted according to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). The force would not comment on the identity of the officers.

"Officers from Strathclyde police have been in contact with a number of protesters who were involved with the Plane Stupid protests including Aberdeen airport," he said. "The purpose of this contact has been to ensure that any future protest activity is carried out within the law and in a manner which respects the rights of all concerned."

Gifford's lawyer, Patrick Campbell, said: "I have very considerable concerns about these events. There appears to be a covert operation that is running in some way with, or using, Strathclyde police's name. There appears to be a concerted effort to turn protesters to informants and possibly infiltrate peaceful protest movements.

He added: "The methods employed are disturbing, and more worrying yet is the lack of any clearly identifiable body responsible for this. These individuals seem to have some kind of police support or at the very least connections with the police – the access to police stations confirms that – but my concern is the lack of accountability and the threat to the individual and her right to protest."

Gifford intended to meet the officers for a third time on Thursday, taking a lawyer with her. But the officers did not appear at the rendezvous. However, she said she was later approached by the detective constable, who said he was disappointed in her. The man got into a car, leaving Gifford feeling shaken and intimidated.

She said last night that the initial approach from the officers was "an opportunity that fell out of the sky". She added: "Recording them seemed like the obvious thing to do. I was keen to find out what they had to offer, what they wanted to find out, and feed that back to the group in case other members of Plane Stupid were approached."

In a statement, Plane Stupid said: "Our civil liberties were invaded and our right to peaceful protest called into question simply to defend the interests of big business."

[Woody1985]

Boo Hoo.

Police use informants all the time to get information.

When people are approached all they need to do is say no thanks.

What is that lightbulb on my message? I can't get it away!

[degenerated]

since the miners strike the police have been deployed as a political tool aggressively and ruthlessly prosecuting any perceived dissent against the state and it's interests through intimidation, criminalisation and violence.
unnacountable shock troops deployed with batons, shields and balalclavas and no idenfication numbers to physically control people who dare to voice dissent and the Intelligence led policing as mentioned in the guardians article that creates the backdrop for pre-emptive policing or thought crime.

scary, isn't it. but yet we still see people blindly defending the police and their actions, actions that are more akin with being the first line of the repressive line of the state than an organisation to offer protection to a countries citizens

good to see that in the wake of their behaviour at G20 protests they are much more under the microscope

to quote conflicts song law and order

No more law & order, that word says it all. It's Just one human being denying another of self rule. The police ain't authority for all they do Is serve the state, they do their dirty work to make the people learn, they
Interrigate, discriminate, smash demos and assault, they sort out all queers and keep the **** locked in a vault and they're here for protection but protection for who? They all wear that same badge that says ***** YOU ALL
Oh yeah, they're here to maintain rights, they're here to keep the peace.
They've also got a right to lock up and not release any form of rebel.They'll even work against their own, because they bribe them very well and they may also get a home. Protect their privelage no matter what the cost, now you're piggy in the middle and they couldn't give a toss. They sit back and laugh yes they laugh at you too, because they also wear a badge that says we use you!, It's Just the same old story of a state gone wrong, where possessions matter and people don't be surprised that we've turned against you because if you take their side, it's ***** YOU TOO!

[fordie2]

since the miners strike the police have been deployed as a political tool aggressively and ruthlessly prosecuting any perceived dissent against the state and it's interests through intimidation, criminalisation and violence.
unnacountable shock troops deployed with batons, shields and balalclavas and no idenfication numbers to physically control people who dare to voice dissent and the Intelligence led policing as mentioned in the guardians article that creates the backdrop for pre-emptive policing or thought crime.

scary, isn't it. but yet we still see people blindly defending the police and their actions, actions that are more akin with being the first line of the repressive line of the state than an organisation to offer protection to a countries citizens

good to see that in the wake of their behaviour at G20 protests they are much more under the microscope

to quote conflicts song law and order




Are you serious, in some countries they wouldn't hesitate to shoot you, fire tear gas iat you, use water cannons to disperse crowds and you think the police here are heavy handed!

How do you propose the police actually tackle it then, stand aside and just let people riot, because if they weren't there then thats what would happen. Look at the incident with the RBS building in London for instance

[hibsbollah]

Boo Hoo.

Police use informants all the time to get information.

When people are approached all they need to do is say no thanks.

What is that lightbulb on my message? I can't get it away!

I don't know how familiar you are with the criminal justice system vis a vis informants, but you're just wrong. Police don't (or aren't supposed to) use legislative powers (which were brought in to supposedly combat the 'muslim menace', lets not forget) to bribe people legally exercising their right to protest.

Would you feel differently if it wasnt Plane Stupid, but say, normal Hibs supporters that were being spied on and bribed, to get information on some of our 'undesireable' supporters?

For what its worth I disagree with degenerated slightly, this kind of abuse of police power wasnt around in the Miners strike era, its something much more widespread and sinister.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am amazed that people even think this is an issue.

The police have been a tool of the establishment since their inception. That's their job. To maintain the LAW (the establishment) and order.

So, they employ certain tactics to enable them to do that job? Tactics which are within that law? Tactics which some people might find immoral, tastless, or dishonest?

No-one likes the idea of being spied on.... see the whole camera debate..... but surely no-one can be surprised, or even outraged, that the police do this.

:rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

I am amazed that people even think this is an issue.

The police have been a tool of the establishment since their inception. That's their job. To maintain the LAW (the establishment) and order.

So, they employ certain tactics to enable them to do that job? Tactics which are within that law? Tactics which some people might find immoral, tastless, or dishonest?

No-one likes the idea of being spied on.... see the whole camera debate..... but surely no-one can be surprised, or even outraged, that the police do this.

:rolleyes:

bribery?

[Bishop Hibee]

I am amazed that people even think this is an issue.

The police have been a tool of the establishment since their inception. That's their job. To maintain the LAW (the establishment) and order.

So, they employ certain tactics to enable them to do that job? Tactics which are within that law? Tactics which some people might find immoral, tastless, or dishonest?

No-one likes the idea of being spied on.... see the whole camera debate..... but surely no-one can be surprised, or even outraged, that the police do this.

:rolleyes:

I'm not "surprised" or "outraged" but I'm glad the spotlight is on the police after the G20. Ian Hyslop was giving them it tight last night on "Have I Got News for You" :top marks

My own experience last year of marching from the Scottish Parliament up the Royal Mile and down the Mound to Princes St sums up the polis. The anti-trident demo was made up mostly of aged 40-50 something trade unionists and middle-class people of a non-tory persuasion who were against Trident. About 2,000 people tops. The police presence was completely over the top. For example, one polis videod from the steps beside John Knox house as we passed while his 2 mates stood beside him chatting. Good use of public money :bitchy: We were videod on at least 3 other occasions.

When my then 12 year old asked why we were being filmed, I told him it was to intimidate people so they wouldn't demonstrate again. Why else would it be? Such police tactics simply alienate them from normal law abiding citizens.

[CropleyWasGod]

bribery?

... or the exchange of information for money. cf Iscariot, Judas.

[Killiehibbie]

... or the exchange of information for money. cf Iscariot, Judas.

If it wasn't for informants very few crimes would be solved or prevented. Sherlock types are few and far between in the police.

[Barney McGrew]

Police don't (or aren't supposed to) use legislative powers (which were brought in to supposedly combat the 'muslim menace', lets not forget) to bribe people legally exercising their right to protest

Which is fair enough, but the higher profile antics of Plane Stupid involve breaking into airport runways, which as far as I'm aware is a criminal act and not something they could claim is legally exercising anything.

[degenerated]

If it wasn't for informants very few crimes would be solved or prevented. Sherlock types are few and far between in the police.

protesting about climate change isn't a crime as far as i'm aware.

[degenerated]

Are you serious, in some countries they wouldn't hesitate to shoot you, fire tear gas iat you, use water cannons to disperse crowds and you think the police here are heavy handed!

in which "some country" was jean charles de menezez gunned down and murdered by the police

the british governement has advocated and authorised the use of water cannons in northern ireland

the police in britain have been using cs gas against protestors since april 1997 when t hey used it on animal rights protestors in ross on wye

so yes i do think the police are heavy handed


How do you propose the police actually tackle it then, stand aside and just let people riot, because if they weren't there then thats what would happen. Look at the incident with the RBS building in London for instance

perhaps they should try and use other methods than the kettle method of controlling protests and keep them moving rather than confining in one place for hours at a time.

[--------]

protesting about climate change isn't a crime as far as i'm aware.

Who told you that? It is in the "Knacker of the Yard Police Handbook", mate.




I'm not "surprised" or "outraged" but I'm glad the spotlight is on the police after the G20. Ian Hyslop was giving them it tight last night on "Have I Got News for You" :top marks

My own experience last year of marching from the Scottish Parliament up the Royal Mile and down the Mound to Princes St sums up the polis. The anti-trident demo was made up mostly of aged 40-50 something trade unionists and middle-class people of a non-tory persuasion who were against Trident. About 2,000 people tops. The police presence was completely over the top. For example, one polis videod from the steps beside John Knox house as we passed while his 2 mates stood beside him chatting. Good use of public money :bitchy: We were videod on at least 3 other occasions.

When my then 12 year old asked why we were being filmed, I told him it was to intimidate people so they wouldn't demonstrate again. Why else would it be? Such police tactics simply alienate them from normal law abiding citizens.

They were afraid you were about to seize the Parliament building and declare "All Power to the Soviet". I know your type. :wink:

[Killiehibbie]

protesting about climate change isn't a crime as far as i'm aware.

Depends on where and how the protesting is done.

[--------]

in which "some country" was jean charles de menezez gunned down and murdered by the police

the british governement has advocated and authorised the use of water cannons in northern ireland

the police in britain have been using cs gas against protestors since april 1997 when t hey used it on animal rights protestors in ross on wye

so yes i do think the police are heavy handed

perhaps they should try and use other methods than the kettle method of controlling protests and keep them moving rather than confining in one place for hours at a time.

I would have thought that even the Met would realise that this is probably the best way of guaranteeing trouble - or maybe they do.... :hmmm:

[Betty Boop]

Who told you that? It is in the "Knacker of the Yard Police Handbook", mate.





They were afraid you were about to seize the Parliament building and declare "All Power to the Soviet". I know your type. :wink:

:faf:

[hibsbollah]

Which is fair enough, but the higher profile antics of Plane Stupid involve breaking into airport runways, which as far as I'm aware is a criminal act and not something they could claim is legally exercising anything.

I'm sure some of them do. Im sure some members of New Labour also do illegal things, but i doubt the Chief Constable would authorise bribing them, do you?:wink:

The point isnt about Plane Stupid, anyway, its about the precedent it sets. I'd feel the same if they were doing it to the BNP or Heart of Midlothian FC.

[Woody1985]

I don't know how familiar you are with the criminal justice system vis a vis informants, but you're just wrong. Police don't (or aren't supposed to) use legislative powers (which were brought in to supposedly combat the 'muslim menace', lets not forget) to bribe people legally exercising their right to protest.

Would you feel differently if it wasnt Plane Stupid, but say, normal Hibs supporters that were being spied on and bribed, to get information on some of our 'undesireable' supporters?

For what its worth I disagree with degenerated slightly, this kind of abuse of police power wasnt around in the Miners strike era, its something much more widespread and sinister.

I don't see where I'm wrong when I said that Police use informants all the time.

They do it to criminals all the time, particularly people caught with drugs. E.g tell us who supplied this and we'll limit your charge etc and try to get more info.

Now I appreciate this scenario is different as they are attempting to gain information on a legal protest group. If that is in the best interest of the public then I personally have no issue with that.

[Betty Boop]

I'm sure some of them do. Im sure some members of New Labour also do illegal things, but i doubt the Chief Constable would authorise bribing them, do you?:wink:

The point isnt about Plane Stupid, anyway, its about the precedent it sets. I'd feel the same if they were doing it to the BNP or Heart of Midlothian FC. It is very sinister, I was listening to the George Galloway phone-in last night, where a number of callers who had been on the Gaza and G20 protests were saying there were undercover police being used as agent provocateurs to whip up trouble. The Government and Police are trying to stop protest in this country.

[CropleyWasGod]

It is very sinister, I was listening to the George Galloway phone-in last night, where a number of callers who had been on the Gaza and G20 protests were saying there were undercover police being used as agent provocateurs to whip up trouble. The Government and Police are trying to stop protest in this country.

How did they know?

Did they have a label saying "Agent Provocateur" sticking out of their pants?

[marinello59]

It is very sinister, I was listening to the George Galloway phone-in last night, where a number of callers who had been on the Gaza and G20 protests were saying there were undercover police being used as agent provocateurs to whip up trouble. The Government and Police are trying to stop protest in this country.

Sorry, I wouldn't argue with much else said about the police on here but the Agent Provacateur thing is a case of over egging the pudding IMHO. Too much like the rhetoric of the WRP for me. (And I have heard plenty of that.)

[Betty Boop]

How did they know?

Did they have a label saying "Agent Provocateur" sticking out of their pants?
Maybe they were flushed out like these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg

[hibsbollah]

Sorry, I wouldn't argue with much else said about the police on here but the Agent Provacateur thing is a case of over egging the pudding IMHO. Too much like the rhetoric of the WRP for me. (And I have heard plenty of that.)

Why not? If the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police has instructed his officers to bribe demonstrators for information, its unlikely he would have any scruples about using those spies (he has already admitted to using, don't forget), to get a bit violent on the protests theyre spying on, don't you think?

[marinello59]

Why not? If the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police has instructed his officers to bribe demonstrators for information, its unlikely he would have any scruples about using those spies (he has already admitted to using, don't forget), to get a bit violent on the protests theyre spying on, don't you think?


You are making a massive jump between blending in and being an Agent Provacateur. I am in no way defending the tactics of the police at G20 but that is quite a leap to take.

[hibsbollah]

You are making a massive jump between blending in and being an Agent Provacateur. I am in no way defending the tactics of the police at G20 but that is quite a leap to take.

I wouldnt know for sure one way or another, but i'd just say in the current environment i wouldnt be surprised.

[Bishop Hibee]

They were afraid you were about to seize the Parliament building and declare "All Power to the Soviet". I know your type. :wink:

:greengrin I actually worked in the Scottish Parliament for a couple of years and I'm not sure it's worth seizing to be honest. Now Westminster......

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe they were flushed out like these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg

Whooooooooooooooosh :wink:

[Woody1985]

I wouldnt know for sure one way or another, but i'd just say in the current environment i wouldnt be surprised.

What current environment is that?

If you mean all the G20 stuff and publicity then surely they would have had to know about all the bad publicity before hand:confused:

[Betty Boop]

Whooooooooooooooosh :wink:

:blushie:

[CropleyWasGod]

:blushie:

It's ok, I don't wear their stuff either. The thongs pinch me :wink:

[Betty Boop]

It's ok, I don't wear their stuff either. The thongs pinch me :wink: :greengrin

[Barney McGrew]

The point isnt about Plane Stupid, anyway, its about the precedent it sets. I'd feel the same if they were doing it to the BNP or Heart of Midlothian FC.

The precedent to try and get information on groups who carry out illegal activities? As far as I can see, they've tried to get information on what Plane Stupid are likely to get up to which if successful will stop the disruption of flights for normal people trying to go about their everyday business.

If they want to protest peacefully then I'm all for that, but there's no need to break the law in order to do it.

[matty_f]

The precedent to try and get information on groups who carry out illegal activities? As far as I can see, they've tried to get information on what Plane Stupid are likely to get up to which if successful will stop the disruption of flights for normal people trying to go about their everyday business.

If they want to protest peacefully then I'm all for that, but there's no need to break the law in order to do it.

:agree:

I don't see the problem with this at all.

They aren't looking to instigate anything, or set up elaborate traps for people - if the protesters aren't up to anything they shouldn't be then that's all the police will find out, if the protesters are planning on breaking the law then it's good that the police are able to prevent it.

[IndieHibby]

I'm not "surprised" or "outraged" but I'm glad the spotlight is on the police after the G20. Ian Hyslop was giving them it tight last night on "Have I Got News for You" :top marks

My own experience last year of marching from the Scottish Parliament up the Royal Mile and down the Mound to Princes St sums up the polis. The anti-trident demo was made up mostly of aged 40-50 something trade unionists and middle-class people of a non-tory persuasion who were against Trident. About 2,000 people tops. The police presence was completely over the top. For example, one polis videod from the steps beside John Knox house as we passed while his 2 mates stood beside him chatting. Good use of public money :bitchy: We were videod on at least 3 other occasions.

When my then 12 year old asked why we were being filmed, I told him it was to intimidate people so they wouldn't demonstrate again. Why else would it be? Such police tactics simply alienate them from normal law abiding citizens.

Jesus wept... You told your kid that police officers (who were present at a legal demo to maintain order) had the job of INTIMIDATION? How is he meant to trust authority if this is his formative impression of the law? What if your son needs the help of the police in future? He's hardly likely to turn to them now.

Your academic point surrounding current policing patterns was probably lost on the 12 year old son. Wait until he is older before telling him the world is anything other than black and white.

If I wanted to cause trouble, being filmed is not intimidating. Wearing a hoody and a scarf is easy enough.

The filming is so that those people who are not " ...40-50 something trade unionists and middle-class people of a non-tory persuasion who were against Trident." who turn up at any old demo to cause trouble, can be monitored and identified - allowing the police to target banning orders at specific groups of trouble makers. This allows your right to PEACEFUL protests to remain.

Watching the G20 protests, the majority of people were peacful, concerned citizens going about their business (right to peaceful protest). However, the small element causing trouble were incoherent, rambling morons intent on one thing only - violence and vandalism.

It is these people who are the focus of the police attention. Problem is, they are using you for cover...

[IndieHibby]

It is very sinister, I was listening to the George Galloway phone-in last night, where a number of callers who had been on the Gaza and G20 protests were saying there were undercover police being used as agent provocateurs to whip up trouble. The Government and Police are trying to stop protest in this country.

Or maybe they were Aliens.... No! It was Elvis....

Listening to George Galloway on any other topic than "how to be a complete ar*e", is foolish in my view.

Did you see him on Big Brother? :bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

Or maybe they were Aliens.... No! It was Elvis....

Listening to George Galloway on any other topic than "how to be a complete ar*e", is foolish in my view.

Did you see him on Big Brother? :bitchy:
No I didn't. Why are you a Big Brother fan?

[hibsbollah]

The precedent to try and get information on groups who carry out illegal activities? As far as I can see, they've tried to get information on what Plane Stupid are likely to get up to which if successful will stop the disruption of flights for normal people trying to go about their everyday business.

If they want to protest peacefully then I'm all for that, but there's no need to break the law in order to do it.

No, the precedent of using bribery and threats to receive that information. If you read the full report and transcripts perhaps you'll see where the concern is.

[Barney McGrew]

No, the precedent of using bribery and threats to receive that information. If you read the full report and transcripts perhaps you'll see where the concern is.

You think that offering money to someone from Plane Stupid for information is setting a precedent?

[hibsbollah]

You think that offering money to someone from Plane Stupid for information is setting a precedent?

Yes I do. Can you direct me to anything to correct me of this misapprehension?

[Green Mikey]

Why not? If the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police has instructed his officers to bribe demonstrators for information, its unlikely he would have any scruples about using those spies (he has already admitted to using, don't forget), to get a bit violent on the protests theyre spying on, don't you think?

You are making a huge assumption here. Just because the Police are willing to pay informants for information (a legal activity) doesn't infer that they are willing to incite violence.

Informants have always been used as a tool of law enforcement. They have been widely used in Northern Ireland, against Muslim extremists and other terror organisations. Do you disagree against the use of informants when they are targeting the aforementioned groups?

From what I have read I have seen no evidence of the Plane Stupid group's right to legal protest being hindered.

[Barney McGrew]

Yes I do. Can you direct me to anything to correct me of this misapprehension?

If you think this is the first time the police will have used this tactic and therefore set a precedent then you're living on a different planet.

[Darth Hibbie]

The police pay for information all the time be it from registered informants or through crimestoppers.

Do not think that there is really an issue unless they are preventing lawful activities

[hibsbollah]

If you think this is the first time the police will have used this tactic and therefore set a precedent then you're living on a different planet.

No need for the 'different planet' jibe. Ive described how it sets a precedent in post 5. Either you've accidentally missed the point or you just get a kick out of deliberately missing it.

[Green Mikey]

I don't know how familiar you are with the criminal justice system vis a vis informants, but you're just wrong. Police don't (or aren't supposed to) use legislative powers (which were brought in to supposedly combat the 'muslim menace', lets not forget) to bribe people legally exercising their right to protest.
Would you feel differently if it wasnt Plane Stupid, but say, normal Hibs supporters that were being spied on and bribed, to get information on some of our 'undesireable' supporters?

For what its worth I disagree with degenerated slightly, this kind of abuse of police power wasnt around in the Miners strike era, its something much more widespread and sinister.

To be pedantic the laws were introduced to combat terrorism not the 'muslim menace'. Muslim extremism may have provided the catalyst for the new legislation, however the laws make no distinction between whether they should be applied to Muslims or climate change groups, or any other organisation. This has allowed the police to use this legislation when investigating any group or individual, either rightly or wrongly.

You seem to have blurred the line between anti-terror law and informants. Informants have always been used by the police, it is in no way a new ploice method. I don't know what precedent it sets by trying to recruit new informants in Plane Stupid, surely the precendent was set a long time ago?

[degenerated]

You are making a huge assumption here. Just because the Police are willing to pay informants for information (a legal activity) doesn't infer that they are willing to incite violence.

Informants have always been used as a tool of law enforcement. They have been widely used in Northern Ireland, against Muslim extremists and other terror organisations. Do you disagree against the use of informants when they are targeting the aforementioned groups?

From what I have read I have seen no evidence of the Plane Stupid group's right to legal protest being hindered.

surely you can see the difference between terrorism and peoples given right to protest in what is supposed to be a deomcratic country.

so your point is absolute nonsense.

[hibsbollah]

surely you can see the difference between terrorism and peoples given right to protest in what is supposed to be a deomcratic country.

so your point is absolute nonsense.

:agree:The lines are being deliberately blurred between 'terrorism' and 'protesting'. By the looks of it a lot of people are falling for it as well.

[Green Mikey]

surely you can see the difference between terrorism and peoples given right to protest in what is supposed to be a deomcratic country.

so your point is absolute nonsense.

I can clearly see the difference between the two.

If you had cared to read my post in it's entirety, it is quite clear that I was asking if people believed in the use of informants against terror groups not against Plane Stupid. I never mentioned any link between terrorism and Plane Stupid.

I would urge that in the future that you read, then try to understand, a post before you post absolute nonsense.

[Green Mikey]

:agree:The lines are being deliberately blurred between 'terrorism' and 'protesting'. By the looks of it a lot of people are falling for it as well.

Smart little dig from the sidelines there :greengrin

This thread was about police using informants to infiltrate Plane Stupid, when I mentioned the blurring of the anti-terrorism and the use of informants I was making reference to your definition of what legislation and laws the police were using. The use of informants is not a specific anti-terror law and is technique used widely by the Police.

For the record I am not keen on the use of anti-terror laws against the general public. See below for a quote from my earlier post:

This has allowed the police to use this legislation when investigating any group or individual, either rightly or wrongly.

[Barney McGrew]

No need for the 'different planet' jibe. Ive described how it sets a precedent in post 5. Either you've accidentally missed the point or you just get a kick out of deliberately missing it.

Not at all. Your post #5 is copied below. Plane Stupid members through their actions of breaking onto airport runways are not legally exercising their right to protest, they're breaking the law. Ergo, the police are well within their rights under the criminal justice system to try and find out information that would stop this happening.

As I've already stated, I've no problem with them protesting peacefully and legally. Where I do have a problem is where they disrupt others day to day lives and do something where the police justifiably arrest them and charge them.



Police don't (or aren't supposed to) use legislative powers (which were brought in to supposedly combat the 'muslim menace', lets not forget) to bribe people legally exercising their right to protest

[IndieHibby]

No I didn't. Why are you a Big Brother fan?

I banned Big Brother (from my tv only, couldn't get nation wide restrictions, more's the pity :wink:) after series 2. But I had to get a look at that national embarrassment doing a cat impression. My opinion of him was low, but watching that dragged it to the floor.

[Betty Boop]

I banned Big Brother (from my tv only, couldn't get nation wide restrictions, more's the pity :wink:) after series 2. But I had to get a look at that national embarrassment doing a cat impression. My opinion of him was low, but watching that dragged it to the floor.

There is no point in getting into an argument about George Galloway, as we have very different opinions, but there are bigger "knobends" as you put it in government and opposition, than him.

[Killiehibbie]

I banned Big Brother (from my tv only, couldn't get nation wide restrictions, more's the pity :wink:) after series 2. But I had to get a look at that national embarrassment doing a cat impression. My opinion of him was low, but watching that dragged it to the floor.

How come it took 2 series for you to ban big brother? I saw 15 minutes of first series what a waste of a quarter hour that was.

[RyeSloan]

I don't know how familiar you are with the criminal justice system vis a vis informants, but you're just wrong. Police don't (or aren't supposed to) use legislative powers (which were brought in to supposedly combat the 'muslim menace', lets not forget) to bribe people legally exercising their right to protest.

Would you feel differently if it wasnt Plane Stupid, but say, normal Hibs supporters that were being spied on and bribed, to get information on some of our 'undesireable' supporters?

For what its worth I disagree with degenerated slightly, this kind of abuse of police power wasnt around in the Miners strike era, its something much more widespread and sinister.

Been away so missed this debate...some nice to-ing and fro-ing but this post stood out to me.

I find it stagerring that you can say the part highlighted in bold...the police and the security services were all over the Miners and had an informant in the NUM's inner circle throughout the strike, this was long long before any terror legislation so to try and paint the Plane Stupid type of action by the Police as an abuse of powers provided to combat terror is not entirely accurate is it.

I have no problems what so ever with Police paying informants to gain information and knowledge on groups and organisations that plan illegal 'direct' action, that's what they are there for...some would say they don't do enough to prevent such events and considering their very slow response to some animal rights groups and their blatant disregard to law and order they might be right. Personally I think the balance seems OK and in no way do I find these 'revelations' a sign of the Police overstepping the mark.

I would of course have a problem if Hibs fans were routinely spied on and bribed for information that had no direct relevance to illegal activities but I see no evidence of this and therefore your comparison is counter to your arguement as it would lindicate that the Police are spending their time investigating on people who are routinely breaking the law and not those who are not.

Finally Plane Stupid seem to have been just that, thinking they could plan and effect illegal disruption of airports without the Police taking an interest.

[--------]

For what its worth I disagree with degenerated slightly, this kind of abuse of police power wasnt around in the Miners strike era, its something much more widespread and sinister.



I agree with SiMar that the police and security servoces were very active within Union organisations during the miners' strike.

This has gone on for a very long time now; what's more it isn't unheard of for police informers in unions and protest groups to actively encourage and instigate the illegal activities the police are supposed to be there to prevent.

Better TV pictures, justification for beefing up the law and giving the polis better allowances, and the discrediting of the Union in the press.

"Agents provocateurs" - right?

[hibsbollah]

I agree with SiMar that the police and security servoces were very active within Union organisations during the miners' strike.

This has gone on for a very long time now; what's more it isn't unheard of for police informers in unions and protest groups to actively encourage and instigate the illegal activities the police are supposed to be there to prevent.

Better TV pictures, justification for beefing up the law and giving the polis better allowances, and the discrediting of the Union in the press.

"Agents provocateurs" - right?

I wasn't trying to say that these things didnt happen during the 84-85 strike (some of my family were involved so unfortunately I know from experience), but that there is a wider use of it now across society, not just targetted at the NUM or individual groups. The new legislation for prolonged detention without charge, 'encouraging and abetting' terrorism (a wooly definintion if ever there was one) and the perceived 'justification' post-7/7 means that we are all subject to a tighter state control over our lives than was the case in 84-85 (although I accept that striking miners, and probably striking pickets at Wapping as well) got an early taste of what was to come.

[RyeSloan]

I wasn't trying to say that these things didnt happen during the 84-85 strike (some of my family were involved so unfortunately I know from experience), but that there is a wider use of it now across society, not just targetted at the NUM or individual groups. The new legislation for prolonged detention without charge, 'encouraging and abetting' terrorism (a wooly definintion if ever there was one) and the perceived 'justification' post-7/7 means that we are all subject to a tighter state control over our lives than was the case in 84-85 (although I accept that striking miners, and probably striking pickets at Wapping as well) got an early taste of what was to come.

Maybe the world has changed somewhat and that threats to the nation come from more varied sources and not just misguided union officials thus more surveilance across a wider spectrum is actually needed?

Also no doubting the the dubiety of some of the new 'terror laws' but where exactly did the Police use these powers in their dealings with Plane Stupid which was after all the basis of your OP?

[hibsbollah]

Maybe the world has changed somewhat and that threats to the nation come from more varied sources and not just misguided union officials thus more surveilance across a wider spectrum is actually needed?

Also no doubting the the dubiety of some of the new 'terror laws' but where exactly did the Police use these powers in their dealings with Plane Stupid which was after all the basis of your OP?

Your first point is valid and is obviously up for debate. I would argue that the fact 'the world has changed' doesnt necessarily equate to meaning 'more surveillance is needed'. Its the old argument about what should a democracy do when its threatened by anti-democratic forces...surely not become less democratic as a response?

As for your second point, the Police, according to reports, used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000, so i accept that the legal precedent for the action came prior to 9/11 and the War on Terror. However, more recent draconian legislation, statements from politicians and the political climate (our intelligence agencies still describe the country as under a 'severe threat of terrorist attack') as a whole combine to create the conditions for abuse of power generally.

[Woody1985]

Your first point is valid and is obviously up for debate. I would argue that the fact 'the world has changed' doesnt necessarily equate to meaning 'more surveillance is needed'. Its the old argument about what should a democracy do when its threatened by anti-democratic forces...surely not become less democratic as a response?

As for your second point, the Police, according to reports, used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000, so i accept that the legal precedent for the action came prior to 9/11 and the War on Terror. However, more recent draconian legislation, statements from politicians and the political climate (our intelligence agencies still describe the country as under a 'severe threat of terrorist attack') as a whole combine to create the conditions for abuse of power generally.

Surely it does mean more surveillance is needed if the threats are coming from wider and more varied sources.

[Killiehibbie]

Surely it does mean more surveillance is needed if the threats are coming from wider and more varied sources.

Not if it infringes on peoples rights. If in doubt wait until they commit an atrocity before acting.

[--------]

I wasn't trying to say that these things didnt happen during the 84-85 strike (some of my family were involved so unfortunately I know from experience), but that there is a wider use of it now across society, not just targetted at the NUM or individual groups. The new legislation for prolonged detention without charge, 'encouraging and abetting' terrorism (a wooly definintion if ever there was one) and the perceived 'justification' post-7/7 means that we are all subject to a tighter state control over our lives than was the case in 84-85 (although I accept that striking miners, and probably striking pickets at Wapping as well) got an early taste of what was to come.


I know, and I agree. We seem to have been sleep-walking into a police state little by little for a long time now, and I'm becoming increasingly intolerant of the argument that we somehow need to destroy all our long-held civil liberties in defence of our, erm, civil liberties, in the face of a supposed terrorist threat apparently less dangerous than the measures being taken to combat it.

[Betty Boop]

Sorry, I wouldn't argue with much else said about the police on here but the Agent Provacateur thing is a case of over egging the pudding IMHO. Too much like the rhetoric of the WRP for me. (And I have heard plenty of that.)


Or maybe they were Aliens.... No! It was Elvis....

Listening to George Galloway on any other topic than "how to be a complete ar*e", is foolish in my view.

Did you see him on Big Brother? :bitchy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs :rolleyes:

[wpj]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs :rolleyes:

Shocking if found to be true, amazing these allegations haven't been mentioned in other media (cue dozens of links proving me wrong)
i think the polis have been up to this kind of thing for as long as they have existed with varying reason and results. Doing it to save lives and for national security could be justified, doing it to get protesters arrested is not