Top Officers ‘Blocking’ Spycops Inquiry’s Work – Morning Star

Morning StarFrom the Morning Star by Conrad Landin, 6 April 2017.

Pitchford participant blasts undercover police for ‘preventing disclosure’

Police chiefs are using “blocking tactics” to “prevent disclosure,” a preliminary hearing of the undercover policing inquiry heard yesterday.

Christopher Pitchford, who is leading the inquiry into the conduct of officers deployed to spy on political groups, convened the session to hear arguments over whether the coppers should be allowed more time to prepare requests for anonymity.

The Metropolitan Police has said assessing the risk of disclosing officers’ real names and cover names has taken longer than anticipated, and a March 1 deadline was missed. It has also asked for the inquiry to be narrowed.

But in a powerful address to the hearing, inquiry core participant Kate Wilson said the police were “obstructing the goals” the probe was aiming for.

Ms Wilson is one of eight women deceived into relationships with undercover officers who won legal cases against the Met.

“We’re not strangers to the blocking tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to prevent disclosure,” she said.

Read on in the Morning Star and support them!

More:
Victims of political policing demand accountability at Undercover Policing Inquiry, in London – Real News video report, 6 April 2017.
Pitchford Inquiry transcripts of the hearings on 5 and 6 April 2017

Roger Pearce confirmed as spycop

Roger Pearce, former Head of Special Branch and spyco

Roger Pearce, #spycop, head of the Special Demonstration Squad and of Special Branch, and now an author.

Dónal O’Driscoll, Undercover Research Group, 29 March 2017.

Today, the Pitchford Inquiry into undercover policing confirmed that former Special Branch commander Roger Pearce had been a spycop. This was something that the Undercover Research Group had first publicly identified in October 2016, having stitched together material from various sources.

It was the police’s own Operation Herne which led the way, giving us the nugget of information that N85, a Special Branch commander had previously been an undercover officer and leading us to the identification. However, when we delved into Pearce’s public appearances, there were plenty of other clues, not least in the way he publicly spoke about spycops.

Defending the indefensible

When the undercover scandal broke, he was vocal in defending the indefensible – theft of dead children’s identities and sexual relations with activists. We now know the horrendous activities that the undercovers got up to on their deployments. Yet, he went on television to state:

The people I know and knew, the people who were selected for Special Branch and above all those who were selected for SDS, with very, very few exceptions who were known about, were people of integrity and honour and fired up by a sense of mission, to protect the country actually.

Continue reading

Spycops Inquiry: Children & Young Adults Group

Children and young adults10 February 2017
One of the untold aspects of the spycops saga has been the effect of undercover police on children and young adults.

People have been affected in different ways. For some it is betrayed friendship with people they trusted, for others it is the affect on their family life. Others will have been directly targeted as young activists. We are aware that there has been a considerable impact to a number of people as a result. In some cases vulnerable people were placed in inappropriate situations, having been deceived by undercover police lying about who they were.

We feel this story is best told by those affected. As a group we wish to bring together and support those in this situation. There is strength in a collective approach, we can be more effective, stronger and we can also ensure that the fullest support is given to those in the group.

What we are looking to achieve is: Continue reading

#Spycops and Strikers: Grunwick to now

Strike to #spycopsSpycops and Strikers is a public event in London on Wednesday 15th February, part part of a series of Grunwick 40 memorial events.
7-9pm, Malet Suite, Student Central, 2nd Floor, Malet Street London WC1E 7HY. Reserve a seat in advance.

Should Grunwick strikers and their supporters be involved the Pitchford Inquiry to find out more about undercover policing? How to deal with the policing of strikes today?

In 1976, six workers walked out of Grunwick Film Processing Laboratory in Willesden and ignited an historic two-year dispute which united thousands to demand better rights for poorly treated workers. The workforce had a significant number of Asian women who were at the forefront of the struggle.

The events of 1976-78 are still remembered as an important moment not just in local history, but in the fight for equal rights for women and ethnic minorities. They brought people of different races and backgrounds together in support of the rights of migrant women workers, shattered stereotypes about Asian women in Britain, and changed the face of trade unionism. Grunwick 40 was set up to commemorate this vital moment.

Such a large, diverse and unified movement attracted serious attention from the Metropolitan Police. Continue reading

Simon Wellings – profile of #spycop now up

Image of Simon Wellings

Simon Wellings, spycop with the Special Demonstration Squad (2001-2004)

Undercover Research Group, 23 January 2017

Today we’ve put up our profile of undercover officer Simon Wellings, our 13th such profile of the spycops who targeted protest groups. Though not the most high-profile spycop, there are a number of things that make his story important nevertheless.

Wellings infiltrated anti-globalisation group Globalise Resistance from 2001 to 2004. He was part of the group’s steering committee and in a position to gain information on the activities of other groups as well. These included the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign Against Climate Change, Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Disarm DSEi, as well as the Socialist Workers Party and trade unionists. With Globalise Resistance he travelled abroad a number of times, taking part in protests at international summits in New York, Seville and Evian.

Being found out

Wellings is notable for the method by which he was discovered – while being debriefed about his spying , he accidentally caused his phone to ring an activist friend. That friend was out, so a copy of the conversation he was having was captured on their answering machine. Continue reading

Counter-terrorism money to sort out police chaotic record keeping

police chaos record keepingEveline Lubbers, Undercover Research Group, 13 January 2017

Last week, the Police Oracle revealed that nearly £750,000 from the counter-terrorism budget is being spent on an IT system to analyse police documents submitted to the Pitchford Undercover Policing Inquiry. Ian Weinfass of the weekly police outlet obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act confirming that the Home Office approved the spending.

We had a good look at the article, found some nuggets and we have some questions about how this extra funding will be spent.

Sorting out police chaos record keeping

The IT contract will only handle documents from the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) to see if they need redacting before being released to the Pitchford Inquiry and subsequently to the public. The NPIOU existed from 1999 to 2011 and focused on activist groups outside of London for much of its history.

It is not clear why a second IT system is needed. An existing IT contract is covering documents relating to the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad. This contract has already been paid for through contributions from all regional forces – although the costs for that are not known yet. Continue reading

Policing Hillsborough: What the new Thatcher papers reveal

Repost of Evan Smith’s highly recommended blog Hatful of History, 10 January 2017.

The newly released files discussed here confirm what the Hillsborough campaigners have always maintained: ‘For the Thatcher government in the wake of Hillsborough, the focus was on crowd control and dealing with unruly elements of football crowds. The actions of the police, at this point in time, were never questioned by the government.’

Evan (@Hatfulofhistory) is an Australian-British academic interested in history, politics and criminal justice issues mostly related to activist and left-wing past and alternative scenes.


In my previous post looking at the policing of acid house parties in the late Thatcher period, I noted that the Home Office complained:

No amount of statutory power will make it feasible for police forces to take on crowds of thousands on a regular basis. We cannot have another drain on police resources equivalent to policing football matches.[1]

Screen Shot 2017-01-10 at 9.00.33 pm.png

In the same tranche of documents released by the National Archives at the end of last year was a Prime Minister’s Office file dedicated to the policing of football hooligans and the Hillsborough disaster of April 1989. The file is primarily concerned with the Football Spectators Bill that was first debated in Hansard in January 1989. This Bill was wide-ranging and had been in development for three years, responding to the recommendations of the Popplewell Inquiry, which investigated the Bradford City fire and the riot at Birmingham’s St Andrews ground in May 1985. As well as proposing new criminal offences related to hooliganism, the extension of exclusion orders for convicted ‘hooligan’s from football grounds under the Public Order Act 1986 and electronic tagging for particular offenders, the Bill included a membership scheme, which meant that only registered members could attend matches and tickets for away fans to be highly restricted.

While this Bill was still in development, the Hillsborough disaster occurred and the Bill was temporarily shelved, although as the Hillsborough Independent Panel has shown, the Prime Minister and some of her colleagues wanted to press ahead with pushing the Bill through parliament, despite the need for an investigation into the disaster.[2] Continue reading

Policing Acid House Parties in 1989: What the new Thatcher Government papers reveal

Repost of Evan Smith’s highly recommended blog Hatful of History, originally posted 31 December 2016.

Evan (@Hatfulofhistory) is an Australian-British academic interested in history, politics and criminal justice issues mostly related to activist and leftwing past and alternative scenes.

The policing of house parties is of interest for the history of the undercover policing, because the roots of the #spycops units are in the policing of travellers, a scene that had quite a bit of overlap with free party one. The papers Evan saw did not contain any reference to the Northern or the Southern Intelligence Unit though.
We may have to go the the National Archives to see the none digitised files for that.


The latest round of papers from the Prime Minister’s Office have been released, relating to the final years of Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1989-90. While files on several topics have been opened, this post will look at the file dedicated the policing of ‘acid house parties’ (also known as raves) in 1989. screen-shot-2016-12-31-at-4-39-25-pm

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the phenomenon of acid house swept across the UK in the mid-to-late 1980s and while a number of clubs, such as the Hacienda in Manchester and Shoom in London, attracted large crowds for their club nights, raves exploded into open areas that were typical venues – warehouses, fields and other places left vacant by Thatcherism. For a number of reasons, including the noise generated by these parties and the use of drugs, these raves started to draw the ire of the police and of the authorities. One briefing note stated that the ‘main problem with acid house parties is the nuisance caused by the noise’ and curiously, stressed ‘[d]rugs are not the main issue’.[1] In a letter to the Leader of the House of Commons, Sir Geoffrey Howe, the new Home Secretary David Waddington wrote that there was also a concern that ‘criminal elements [were] becoming involved’.[2] This concern, ‘coupled with the need to reassure the public that the existing law can be made effective’, Waddington argued, required a new approach.[3] He also noted that 223 parties had been held in London and the South East in 1989, with 96 stopped by the police and another 95 prevented from going ahead.[4]

And so, after a localised and haphazard response by local councils and the police, in late 1989, the Thatcher government proposed a co-ordinated and nationwide effort to clamp down on these ‘illegal’ parties. Continue reading

Support Our Pitchford Project 2017!

250 Undercover Research Group, 3 January 2017.

The Undercover Research Group aims to dedicate the next two years to the Pitchford Project, to make the most of the current independent Undercover Policing Inquiry.

The Inquiry was called by Home Secretary (now PM) Theresa May to investigate uncover policing in England and Wales since 1968, and is chaired by Lord Justice Christopher Pitchford. Over 150 political activists and social justice groups overcame their scepticism and are now involved as ‘core participants’; more will be called as a witness.

The Pitchford Inquiry offers a narrow window of opportunity to get insight into decades of political policing and the associated human right abuses, and the Undercover Research Group wants to make the most of it. For those targeted by the spying truth finding is essential, and our Project is set up to maximise the options for disclosure under the 2005 Inquiry Act. Continue reading

Scotland – A total lack of independent scrutiny

Stephen Whitelock, Lead Inspector at HMICS

Stephen Whitelock

Recently the Scottish government announced HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland would review the activities of controversial Special Branch undercover police units in its territory. Two weeks ago it was announced the review would be carried out by HMICS’ Stephen Whitelock.

In this article we demonstrate how Whitelock has been a key player in a network of officers in and around Strathclyde Police intelligence units and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency over the last two decades. Some of these networks continue to exist to this very day, and include links between the notorious spycop units and the top echelons of Police Scotland. Many of these individuals would have known of spycop activity taking place in Scotland. So much for independent scrutiny.

Dónal O’Driscoll, Undercover Research Group, 27 November 2016

Mark Kennedy’s visit to Scotland

Not long ago, the Undercover Research Group learned that spycop Mark Kennedy went out of his way to visit Scotland in 2004-2005. At one point he drove friends several hundreds of miles to go to a meeting just south of Glasgow. As he was not involved in the meeting himself, it was seen as a remarkably generous thing to do, and it cemented his reputation as a helpful comrade. However, what we have learned to date is that more than likely he was interested in Faslane Peace Camp as well as upcoming protests for the G8.

This was not a simple trip with friends, but a visit to a place of interest to the political police. It has the hallmarks of a targeted operation, conducted with the knowledge of local Special Branch chiefs who would have played some role in authorising it. Intelligence he gained would  no doubt have been shared with Strathclyde and Ministry of Defence Police, who between them had oversight of policing of the regular protests in and around the Faslane naval base, where a permanent peace camp had been established.

Kennedy would be back repeatedly in summer 2005, as part of his role as a logistics co-ordinator for G8 protests. He was certainly back on Strathclyde’s patch as Glasgow hosted national meetings to prepare the protests, and during the G8 itself at the important protest convergence centre in the city. Other undercovers from the NPOIU spycop unit were present in Glasgow that year as well, including Jason Bishop.

The HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Review

Fast forward a decade to the present. The spycops scandal has exploded, after the exposure of Kennedy. The Pitchford Inquiry is now investigating activities of undercover officers. However, it is limited to England and Wales despite many abuses taking place abroad, particularly in Scotland. This has led to considerable pressure on the SNP Government to get Scotland included in the Pitchford Inquiry or to launch its own independent one.

Having been knocked back by Theresa May when it came to getting into Pitchford, the response from the Justice Minister, Michael Matheson was to pass the buck to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS). Another debatable decision as HMICS is – like its English & Wales counterpart – mostly staffed by police. Furthermore, the new head of Police Scotland, Phil Gormley is someone who used to oversee one of the spycop units, and his wife Claire Stevens is also an Inspector with HMIC in England.

Last weekend a series of new issues emerged with HMICS when the Scottish Herald uncovered that the man leading the review for HMICS was one Steve Whitelock, who had been involved in overseeing covert policing for the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA). This led the government rush to reassure campaigners that HMICS was independent.

We strongly beg to differ. Here is why. Continue reading