Undercover British Political Police: RAPE WOMEN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNERS

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/12/09/undercover-policing-how-women-forced-the-police-to-own-up UNDERCOVER BRITISH POLITICAL POLICE:  RAPE WOMEN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNERS Undercover police: How women forced the Met to own up Wednesday, 9 December 2015 9:18 AM By Jenny Jones When the inquiry into undercover policing re-opens today we should congratulate several strong women. First, there are the innocent women who had their lives torn apart by police officers who deceived their way into their beds and their family lives. These women pursued a brave civil action against the Metropolitan Police and after many years forced a much-delayed and reluctant apology. Secondly, there is Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence, whose equally dogged campaign for justice was subject to police spying. And thirdly we should congratulate Theresa May, the Home Secretary, who has made some very wise decisions about policing issues within the UK, since taking on the job. The Met's apology is not only an important vindication of all these women’s hard work in identifying the officers, it exposes how it institutionally supported those officers and their behaviour for so many years. The Met financed the lies. It refused to confirm or deny the existence of these police officers. And it spent hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting the court case against the women. No disciplinary action has been taken against the senior officers who authorised this huge waste of public funds and police time and resources. So will the Met continue to spin these acts as those of a few rogue officers who formed casual sexual relationships using their undercover identities? The truth is the taxpayer funded officers to form long term emotional bonds with these women as a deliberate tactic to gain access to the network of campaigners whom they wanted to spy upon. I'm curious as to how the Met will try to justify their policy of Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND), as this was the brick wall which the women faced when they initially brought forward their allegations and it was this policy which forced them into taking a civil action. How could any of these women have faith in a police investigation into undercover officers where the Met wouldn’t even acknowledge that they exist? My own questions to the Mayor of London on this highlighted this inconsistency. The Met has maintained a blanket policy and has defended that position in court, but they also claim to regularly carry out risk assessments about the danger faced should officers have their identities exposed. If it does revisit risk assessments on undercover operatives, do they always find the officers would be 'placed in significant danger as a result of their identities being revealed'? If that's the case, why bother doing the risk assessments in the first place? One of the big things missing from this inquiry is what UK undercover officers were doing while working in continental Europe. This has already been raised in the German Parliament. We know that some of them operated abroad and the inquiry should assure itself that the rule- breaking which went on in the UK stopped at the English Channel. The refusal of the inquiry to look at this, despite my appeals to the Home Secretary, will leave an air of suspicion about what our police got up to on foreign soil. The Met has maintained that the Special Demonstration Squad was an aberration, which functioned outside the normal channels of accountability within New Scotland Yard. But if it was an aberration, it was an aberration that was allowed to continue for 40 years. While I would support much of the Met’s undercover work which is short term and aimed at serious crime, it’s clear it sees spying on thousands of innocent people who are involved in perfectly legitimate campaigns as a regular part of their work. I say this as someone who was labelled a domestic extremist and was on the Met database for 10 years. This was not only a waste of public funds, but damaging to the democratic process, especially when the Met Police are spying on people who are trying to hold them to account for their failures, as I was. It crosses a line to pry into the lives of campaigners who are taking court cases against them, or organising public meetings criticising their actions. There may sometimes be legitimate reasons for the Met Police to do so, but they should have to justify every action, to ensure that it isn't simply about saving themselves from public embarrassment. Baroness Jenny Jones is a Green Party peer and London Assembly member. http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/12/09/undercover-policing-how-women-forced-the-police-to-own-up UNDERCOVER BRITISH POLITICAL POLICE:  RAPE WOMEN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNERS Undercover police had children with activists Disclosure likely to intensify controversy over long-running police operation to infiltrate and sabotage protest groups Rob Evans and Paul Lewis Saturday 21 January 2012 07.15 AEDT Two undercover police officers secretly fathered children with political campaigners they had been sent to spy on and later disappeared completely from the lives of their offspring, the Guardian can reveal. In both cases, the children have grown up not knowing that their biological fathers – whom they have not seen in decades – were police officers who had adopted fake identities to infiltrate activist groups. Both men have concealed their true identities from the children's mothers for many years. One of the spies was Bob Lambert, who has already admitted that he tricked a second woman into having a long-term relationship with him, as part of an intricate attempt to bolster his credibility as a committed campaigner. The second police spy followed the progress of his child and the child's mother by reading confidential police reports which tracked the mother's political activities and life. [ ... ] EXTRACT - CONTINUED AT SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists BRITISH POLICE TACTICS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION ... IS *ENDORSED* BY EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2012) KETTLED BY BRITISH POLICE: Baroness Jenny Jones is a Green Party peer and London Assembly member  - Wikipedia. Kettling -- aka 'containment' -- aka 'corralling' -- fm German 'kessel' - 'cauldron' or 'kettle' -- term used to describe encircled army about to be annihilated -- thus a MILITARY TACTIC Kettling - Police Military Tactic -- in protest terms, aim is to prevent splintering of protesters -- to prevent forced splintering of police -- kettle formed by large cordons of police surrounding protesters -- once kettle formed (ie once protesters are surrounded) -- police cordon is tightened, incl. use of baton charges -- to restrict territory occupied by protesters -- police deny protesters access to food, water, and toilet facilities -- for arbitrary period determined by police -- protesters & bystanders therefore harassed & assaulted before being arbitrarily held captive -- protesters imprisoned by cordon for several hours, 'cooling' -- and left with one choice of exit: controlled by the police CRITICISMS Kettling - Police Military Tactic -- indiscriminate -- results in detention of law-abiding citizens & bystanders -- denied food, water & toilet facilities for excessively long periods, in some cases -- tactic used to foment disorder to change focus of public debate 2012 European Court of Human Rights -- following legal challenge -- ruled kettling lawful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb was kettled at demonstration against student fees in December 2010 Zain Sardar, from the Young Greens: "People have been kettled for up to nine hours without food and without medical assistance ..." "Kettling is an infringement of the fundamental right to peaceful protest." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-12293394 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- European court says 'kettling' tactics in 2001 lawful 15 March 2012 "Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001. The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights. Three people - George Black, a Greek national from Australia; Bronwyn Lowenthal and Peter O'Shea - who had nothing to do with the demonstration, took the case to Europe claiming they were "deprived of their liberty". They were joined by Lois Austin, from Basildon, Essex, who had been taking part in the protest. 'Volatile conditions' The court said: "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions. "This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence. Although the police tried to start dispersing the crowd throughout the afternoon, they had been unable to do so as the danger had persisted." It was the first time the court in Strasbourg had been asked to rule on kettling. [...] The European Court's Grand Chamber of 17 judges, presided over by Belgium's Francoise Tulkens, said: "Even by 2001, advances in communications technology had made it possible to mobilise protesters rapidly and covertly on a hitherto unknown scale. "Article 5 did not have to be construed in such a way as to make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public." The judges ruled that the convention also placed a duty on the police "to protect individuals from violence and physical injury". Earlier this year, in a separate case, the Met won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during G20 demonstrations in 2009. [ ...] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17378700 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What the British political police have done to these women political campaigners, for the sake of British authorities infiltrating and spying on Britons exercising their lawful and democratic political rights, is depraved and worse than being killed (in my view). Doing a quickie check on Baroness Jenny Jones, I came across 'kettling' and it drew my attention. The term most likely arises from the military tactic of surrounding opposing forces. So now I know what kettling is and what those references 'cauldron' were, when I was following the self-defence action in Novorossiya without a clue what they were talking about.  Maybe I've read about kettling since and have forgotten, which is possible.  Apologies in advance if I'm repeat posting.  lol While I can understand the reluctance of courts to prevent police being able to do their work (which does, indeed, involve maintenance of order and protection of  the public),  indiscriminate and aggressive policing (such as kettling) which can (and has) been misused and is illegitimate as a police tactic (see 9-hour kettling reference above). In upholding the tactic of kettling protesters and bystanders (ie indiscriminately assault, imprisonment & protracted cruelty meted out by law enforcement authorities), the European Court of Human Rights has proven itself to be as illegitimate as the law enforcement authorities it has backed. The ECHR is another joke institution.  Don't expect much of this 17-judge farce. ------------ Protesters need to read military manuals (or even historic information about Roman battle formations etc), to figure how to circumvent the cauldron thingy.   Pre-planned protester splinters might be the go. Can't believe I've flipped sides.  Usually I side with the authorities whenever I see what looks like a violent rabble that needs hosing down or something. I'm bound to flip and do a 360 ... I'm not much of a rebel.  lol ꕤ

Britain - Illegal MI5, MI6 & GCHQ Spying on Parliamentarians

SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Intelligence agency policies 'failed to protect MPs' from spying In the last year MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have followed eight different policies governing the interception of parliamentarians communications, court told Caroline Lucas: MPs need to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers Caroline Lucas argues there is a strong likelihood her communications have been intercepted. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Ian Cobain Thursday 23 July 2015 23.42 AEST Last modified on Thursday 23 July 2015 23.45 AEST The UK’s intelligence agencies have been operating unlawful surveillance policies that have failed to adequately protect the confidential communications of members of parliament, a court has heard. Officers of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have been operating under eight different policies in the last 12 months alone, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) heard on Thursday. Most of these policies have failed fully to comply with the law, or with the 50-year-old political convention known as the Wilson doctrine that was thought to prohibit the agencies from eavesdropping on MPs or members of the House of Lords, Ben Jaffey, counsel for the Green party parliamentarians Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones told the IPT. The Wilson doctrine is named after the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who told the Commons in November 1966 that parliamentarians would not be spied upon and that if this policy needed be changed for national security reasons, the PM would announce this in due course. Lucas, Jones and former Respect MP George Galloway argue there is a strong likelihood that their communications have been intercepted as a consequence of the surveillance programmes exposed by the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The IPT – a secretive court that hears complaints about the UK’s intelligence agencies – is being asked to confirm that the Wilson doctrine has force in law. The parliamentarians also say that agencies have breached the European convention on human rights. Some elements of the government’s defence against the legal challenge are being kept secret and the court is likely to sit in camera, with the public and media excluded, if it comes to consider evidence of actual surveillance of MPs and peers. Jaffey told the IPT that MI5 operated one policy governing the interception of parliamentarians’ communications from April 2012 to September 2014, when it was rewritten after Lucas and Jones lodged their challenge. It was rewritten again last February after government lawyers drafted their “open response” – or non-secret defence – to the claim. David Miliband, when foreign secretary, authorised an MI6 policy which allowed the agency to intercept parliamentarians’ communications without the prime minister being notified, the IPT was told. This policy was rewritten last February, bringing it closer in wording to the MI5 policy. GCHQ’s policy was rewritten in March this year and again three months later. Jaffey said the various policies “fail fully to comply with the law and they fail to comply with public statements as to safeguards”. It was not the parliamentarians’ case that MPs and members of the Lords should never be intercepted, he said, and there may be exceptional national security grounds for doing so. However, MPs needed to be able to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers. He said: “Strict safeguards to protect parliamentary communications are an important bulwark for the protection of the public interest.” Although the Wilson doctrine requires the prime minister to make a statement if the policy were to be reversed, all three agencies were operating internal policies that did not require them to inform prime ministers that they were intercepting MPs’ communications, the IPT was told. These were changed only once Lucas and Jones embarked upon their challenge. When GCHQ rewrote its policy last month, it did so in a way that removed all protection for communications data and for members of the devolved parliament and assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Lucas and Jones argue that intercepts which capture the communications of parliamentarians should require the authorisation of a judge. SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Caroline Lucas Jenny Jones, Green Party (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb)  George Galloway, fmr Respect Party  Is the government spying on politicians? ‘Blanket surveillance’ probed in court hearing  Prison staff have recorded 3,150 prisoner calls to MPs and downloaded 280 for playback since 2006. http://www.rt.com/uk/310579-government-spying-politicians-surveillance/ --------------------- COMMENT UK's a creepy surveillance state & the conduct of its spy agencies provides further justification for whistleblower publishers, I would think.