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

Suppressive Police State - USA

SOURCE http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-09-04/apd-tracks-social-media/ APD Tracks Social Media Local social media monitoring software company met with shady digital spying group By John Anderson, Fri., Sept. 4, 2015 Snaptrends software can assign a geographical digital boundary which allows the user "to see conversation clusters and activity heat maps" within the defined area, according to Snap Trends' Matthew Hammer. As the world increasingly becomes glued to social media, it comes as little surprise that law enforcement would join in. But what some Facebook users or Twitter followers may not be aware of is how local law enforcement is using software to monitor their posts and tweets. Founded in 2012 as a private company and located just off Capital of Texas High­way, Snap Trends develops software that aggregates public information collected from social media. The company's website claims their software "builds a clear view of social conversations when and where they occur, the influencers driving them, and why." A Feb. 13 letter from Snap Trends Director of Sales Ken Ross to APD Sgt. Jeff Greenwalt, discovered in a Chron­icle open records request to APD and DPS, asserts that Snap Trends "developed its software intelligence system to serve public safety organization [sic] and national intelligence agencies in the United States." Ross further explained the "system uses advance [sic] algorithms and processes to procure this high density social data footprint." Other documents reveal that both APD and DPS have current subscriptions to Snaptrends software, spending $6,370 and $24,200 respectively in the past year. APD Public Information Specialist Jenni­fer Herber informed the Chronicle that APD began using Snaptrends software on March 1, 2013. DPS began using it one month later, according to DPS Public Information Officer Tom Vinger. DPS currently has 13 employees licensed to use the software, while APD has 25 officers with access. Emails obtained from APD demonstrate the Snaptrends software "makes it easy to share profiles, groups and persons-of-interests" and "can even integrate custom Facebook accounts." But its main feature is using geolocation to narrow a search using a "Poly Tool" which, according to a Snap Trends email, allows law enforcement "to gather pertinent information from social media platforms over specific areas without drawing in irrelevant content from unwanted areas .... This allows you to monitor precise locations such as parade routes, major highways or areas where protests are occurring." When asked if APD purchased the software for such events, Herber explained: "Real­-time analysis of open sources such as social media has been used to predict crimes and to help law enforcement respond more quickly as needed including, for example, stopping active shooters, tracking gang activity, and anticipating public protests that could escalate into violence." Additionally, she said the mission of the Austin Regional Intelligence Center (ARIC), where the software is used, "is to maximize the region's ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal/terrorist activity." Other documents show Snap Trends partnered with a private company called Esri, which develops mapping software called ArcGIS and has also been used by APD in the past. According to internal emails obtained via open records request, APD Senior Crime Analyst Tess Sherman used the Esri software to monitor Occupy Austin's first demonstration at City Hall in October 2011. Sherman pointed out the mapping function "would be neat-o to try. Although it may just end up as a bunch of dots downtown since a lot of it is real-time comments from the scene." Despite receiving tech support from the company, APD Police Planner Nora Evans replied to Sherman, "I don't know a lot about Twitter so maybe you can figure it out." But Snap Trends' emails indicate the company offered to provide tech support for its own software to at least 16 APD employees. What were the police looking for? In one email, Snap Trends Account Manager Mark Klasson sent APD a document titled "Keywords." Assist­ant City Attorney Cary Grace has asked the Texas Attorney General's office to exempt that document and others from public disclosure. As of press time, the AG's office has not made a decision regarding the exemption. Expanded surveillance remains a possibility, and a hack in July of the Italian surveillance software company Hacking Team gave hints of what could be on the horizon. The hack shed light on some of the darker sides of digital spying, including conversations between Hacking Team and Snap Trends that revolved around a potential partnership. Instead of monitoring public information, Hacking Team's Remote Control Sys­tem software infects remote computers and mobile phones, allowing control over them. Reporters Without Borders has called Hacking Team "digital mercenaries" and "corporate enemies of the Internet." According to the hacked emails, available on the Wikileaks website, in March, Snap Trends CEO Eric Klasson met in Dubai for the "first exploratory meeting" with members of Hacking Team. Emails show the Dubai meeting was also attended by Snap Trends' partner Chenega, which resells Snap Trends' software internationally. After the meeting, Hacking Team's Philippe Vinci summarized: "The combination of each parties [sic] capabilities, Massive Social Media monitoring and Tactical Targets' Device interception, could bring a lot of value to customers and prospective customers of each party." Replying to that email, Klasson wrote, "I agree that a joint effort to sort this is something the market will respond to favorably (and quickly)." The three companies kept up their contact through at least early June, including a meeting in Prague, but the emails lack specific details about the collaboration. Asked by the Chronicle to describe Snap Trends' relationship with Hacking Team, however, Snap­ Trends Marketing Director Matthew Ham­mer wrote via email that "Snap Trends knows of the Hacking Team, but has no relationship with them, and we don't plan on doing any business with them in the future." Open records requests did not yield documents indicating that APD or DPS have purchased Hacking Team's software; nor is there is any evidence that Snaptrends software currently operates as malware. A LexisNexis 2014 "Social Media Use in Law Enforcement" report (available on the Snap Trends' website) which surveyed "federal, state and local law enforcement professionals" found that 81% "actively use social media as a tool in investigations," and 78% of current users plan "to use it even more in the coming year." Snap Trends' Hammer claims "hundreds" of U.S. law enforcement departments or agencies have bought their software. But raising questions about the effectiveness and accountability of this type of monitoring, the LexisNexis study also concluded that "52% of agencies still don't have a formal process for using social media for investigations." SOURCE http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-09-04/apd-tracks-social-media/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT APD = Austin Police Dept DPS = Dept of Public Safety (I'm guessing) Check out the policing techniques at work in totalitarian, surveillance & militarised police-state, USA:  straight out of the Czarist-Russia style suppression tools manual -- with a modern, digital technology, mapping & harnessing social media data, twist. The power to grossly violate the civil liberties of ordinary Americans is at the disposal of Texas police (and has been exercised since 2013).  But it is not limited to Texas:  many other US law enforcement agencies have adopted these same practices.  It's primarily for maintenance of plutocratic power, although law enforcement representatives will, of course, argue otherwise ... while they make application, seeking to hide their violations of freedom and democracy. Note, particularly, the intention to keep this secret police monitoring from public knowledge. So much for what is supposed to be accountability and democratic government transparency -- which is intended to also extend to government agencies, such as the police.  Abuses of civil liberties such as this go a long way towards explaining why resistant activists, hacktivists, whistleblowers, and whistleblower journalists and publishers, such as WikiLeaks, are so vital. I Imagine that this information would be relevant to protesters, activists, unionists, political groups, students, and all and any other persons exercising rightful political freedoms, in what is supposed to be democratic society. PS In case you think this is limited to USA and doesn't apply to you, think again ... and maybe do some Freedom of Information applications.  lol ꕤ