Join hundreds of people in London on the 7th and 8th of July to celebrate 50 years of campaigns, struggles, resilience and success.

On the 7th of July we will be gathering from 12.30 pm at Grosvenor Square for a roll call of groups spied on. More information here.

On the 8th of July there will be a conference exploring five decades of movements for change, exhibitions, food, videos and talks at the Conway Hall. More information here.

Download the full programme as a PDF, or browse it here.

Follow us on Facebook & Twitter.
Email: 50yrsevents@gmail.com 

WHY 50 YEARS OF RESISTANCE?

In 1968, following demonstrations against the Vietnam War in London’s Grosvenor Square, the police set up a Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). Since that time, 50 years ago, over 1,000 groups campaigning in the UK for a better world have been spied on, infiltrated and targeted by political policing. Their protests and demonstrations are also subjected to ongoing police opposition and control to try to limit their effectiveness

This targeting has included groups campaigning for equality, justice, the environment and international solidarity, for rights for women, LGBTQ, workers and for animals, for community empowerment, and those campaigning against war, racism, sexism, corporate power, legal repression and police oppression and brutality.

Such groups have represented many millions of people throughout the UK who want to make the world a better, fairer and more sustainable place for everyone. Yet almost any group of any kind that stood up to make a positive difference has been or could have potentially been a target for secret political policing. We now know this because of campaigners’ recent efforts to expose and challenge the SDS and other similar secret units, and their shocking and unacceptable tactics. 

Individuals within those campaign groups have been spied on, subjected to intrusions in their personal lives, been victims of miscarriages of justice, and many deceived into intimate and abusive relationships with secret police, ie people that who were not who they said they were.

In July 2015 we succeeded in forcing Theresa May (now Prime Minister) to set up the current Undercover Policing Inquiry, which was tasked with getting to the truth by July 2018, and insisting on action to prevent police wrong-doing in future. Now, three years on, the public inquiry has achieved very little due to police obstruction.

When the SDS was formed they aimed to ‘shut down’ the movements they were spying on. But despite disgusting police tactics, movements for positive change are still here and growing, and have had many successes on the way.

The planned events are in support of those campaigning for full exposure and effective action at the Undercover Policing Inquiry, and against police attempts to delay and undermine it.

We aim to encourage more groups to find out about the Inquiry and how they can get involved and support each other, and to unite the many different groups and organisations who have been victims of our police state because of their efforts to improve society.

Saturday 7th July

12:30pm
Grosvenor Square, London W1K 2HP [Google map]

Demonstration against the Vietnam War, Grosvenor Square, London 1968

On the 7th of July we will meet in Grosvenor Square, the site of the demonstrations which led to the formation of the SDS, to hold a roll call of the groups that we have known to be spied on (see the list below).

Email us as soon as possible if you or another member of the group can attend – we know that many of the groups don’t exist anymore, we will let you know if someone else from your group writes in.  50yrsevents@gmail.com

PROGRESSIVE GROUPS & CAMPAIGNS TARGETED BY SPYCOPS, 1968-2018

121 Bookshop/Centre Brixton
Action to Abolish the Grand National
Activist Tat Collective
Aldermaston Women’s Peace Camp
All London March Against Racist Police Frame-up and Murder
Anarchist Communist Federation
Anarchist groups
Animal Aid
Animal Liberation Front
Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group
Animal Liberation Investigation Unit
Animal Rights Coalition
Animal Rights Gatherings
Anti Apartheid Movement
Anti Nazi League
Anti-Fascist Action
Anti-G20 protests
Anti-GM campaigns
Anti-Metrix / RAF St Athan Defence Academy
Arkangel
Active Resistance to the Roots of War
Badgers Animal Rights
Banner Books
Bedford Animal Action
Big Flame
Big Green Gathering
Black Power movement
Blair Peach Campaign
Block the Base / Menwith Hill
Brian Douglas campaign
Brian Higgins Defence Commitee
British Communist Party
Brixton Hunt Sabs
Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign
Building Workers Group
Camp Bling
Camp for Climate Action
Campaign Against Climate Change
Campaign Against Fur Trade
Campaign Against Police Repression
Campaign Against the Arms Trade
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Cardiff Anarchist Network
Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army
Class War
Colin Roach Centre
Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist)
Consort Beagles campaign
Cowley Club
Dambusters Mobilising Committee
Delroy Lindo justice campaign / Police Crimes Against Civilians
Direct Action Against War Now
Direct Action Movement
Disarm DSEi Arms Fair
Disobedience Against War
Dissent!
Earth First!
Earth First! Summer Gatherings
Eat Out Vegan Wales
Essex Hunt Sabs
European Social Forum
Fairford Anti-War Campaign and Coaches
Federation of Local Animal Rights Groups
Free Steve Lewis Campaign
Freedom
Freedom Press
Globalise Resistance
Greenham Common Women’s Camp
Gwent Anarchists
Hackney Community Defence Association
Hackney Hunt Saboteurs
Hackney Solidarity Group
Harry Stanley family campaign
Housmans Bookshop
Hunt Saboteurs
Independent Labour Party
Independent Working Class Association
International Marxists Group
International Socialists
Irish National Liberation Solidarity Front
Islington Animal Rights
JJ Fast Foods Strike
Justice for Ricky Reel
KTS Autonomous Centre
Lee House squat
Leeds anti-fascist group
Leeds Action for Radical Change
Legal Defence and Monitoring Group
Leyden Street Chicken Slaughter House campaign
Live animal exports at Shoreham, Brightlingsea & Coventry
London Animal Action
London Animal Rights Coalition
London anti fur groups
London Anti-Fur Campaign
London Boots Action Group
London Greenpeace
London Pacifist Action
McLibel Support Campaign
Milford Haven anti-LNG pipeline
Molesworth Peace Camp
Movement Against A Monarchy
Movement for Justice
No Borders / No Borders South Wales
No Platform / Antifa
No to NATO
No to NIRAH
Northampton Hunt Sabs
Norwich activists networks
Nottingham Anti-Fascist Alliance
Nottingham Group Against Refugee Detention
Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs
NukeWatch
Operation Omega
Oscar Okoye justice campaign
Oxford Animal Protection
Palestinian Solidarity Campaign
Partizans
Peace News
Peace Pledge Union
Peat Alert!
Pembrokeshire Anarchists
Poll Tax demonstrations
Radical Dairy Squat
Radical Routes network
Ratcliffe-on-Soar action
RATS 
Reclaim the Streets
Red Action
Reinstate Steve Hedley Campaign
Republican Forum
Revolutionary Internationalist League
Revolutionary Socialist Students Federation
Rising Tide
Save Gorse Wood campaign / tendon protest camp
Save Newchurch GuineaPigs
Save the Hillgrove Cats
Save Titnore Woods / Protect Our Woodland
Saving Iceland (UK)
Sea Shepherd
Sengul Family Must Stay Campaign
Shark Protection League
Shoreham Live Export protests
Smash EDO campaign
Socialist Party
Socialist Workers Party
South London Animal Action / Aid
South London Animal Movement
South Wales Anarchists
SPEAK Campaigns / Stop Primate Experiments At Cambridge
Stephen Lawrence Justice campaign 
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
Stop the ’70s Tour
Stop the War
Student fees campaigns
Sumac Centre Nottingham
Swansea Animal Rights
The Common Place social centre / Leeds Social Centre Ltd
Trapese
Trevor Monerville justice campaign / Family and Friends of Trevor Monerville Committee
Tri-Continental
Trident Ploughshares
Troops Out Movement
Uist Hedgehog Rescue
UK Action Medics
Climate Justice Action / Never Trust a Cop
Veggies Catering Nottingham
Vietnam Solidarity Campaign
War Resisters International
Wayne Douglas justice campaign
West London hunt sabs
WOMBLES
Women’s Liberation Front
Workers Revolutionary Party
Yorkshire CND
Young Haganah
Young Liberals
Youth Against Racism in Europe
Zapatista coffee distribution

Sunday 8th July

CONFERENCE & GATHERING

10:00am
Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL[Google map]

Please note this is a draft program and subject to change.

There will be a kids space, food, exhibitions, videos and stalls throughout the day.  There are also break out spaces for more detailed discussions on spycops.

DRAFT PROGRAMME

10am  Doors open:  stalls, food and exhibition.

10:30  Introduction of the days, themes from the decades

11am Split up into 5 decades around the hall. Sharing of experiences, views, discussions and successes. 

12:30 – 1:15pm  LUNCH    

1:15pm  Welcome back.

1:20pm Theatre performance: The People’s Inquiry

3pm  Plenary – where we are now, and what all can do

– Spycops

– Movements for change / The Future

4pm  Event ends

We are looking for facilitators and people to help set up and take down. If you can help please email 50yrsevents@gmail.com

4pm leaving Conway Hall: Radical history walk

8pm Jackson’s Lane Theatre: Secret Spycops Ball comedy night – SOLD OUT

Logistics

We are hoping lots of people will join us from across the UK and beyond to take part in the 2 day celebration of resistance.

There is a Facebook page to help coordinate travel and logistics.  

If you need accommodation or can provide accommodation please let us know at 50yrsevents@gmail.com

Sajid Javid

As Home Secretary, Amber Rudd’s intransigence brought the Undercover Policing Inquiry to crisis point. Will her successor Sajid Javid open his ears and undo her damage?

The country was shocked to learn of Britain’s political secret police units infiltrating more than 1,000 groups over 40 years, violating human rights, orchestrating miscarriages of justice and undermining democratic dissent.

When Theresa May’s choice of Chair for the public inquiry, Lord Pitchford, resigned for health reasons in May 2017, Amber Rudd appointed Sir John Mitting.

Mitting displays huge gullibility and misplaced faith in the integrity of the trained liar police officers whose wrongdoing is the subject of his Inquiry. He has ignored the sustained, increasingly desperate pleas of victims as he steers the Inquiry deeper into crisis of confidence.

Rudd stonewalled repeated appeals from victims to intervene. Women deceived into relationships by spycops and Neville Lawrence asked to meet her but the requests weren’t even acknowledged.

Victims who have been granted core participant status at the Inquiry are clear that Mitting must resign, or at least sit with a panel alongside him. Alison, an activist deceived into a five-year relationship by Special Demonstration Squad officer Mark Jenner, explained:

‘At the heart of this inquiry are the politics of race, sex and class. If we’re ever to get to the bottom of what’s been allowed to happen with undercover political policing in this country, we need an inquiry led by people with sensitivity, experience and real understanding of these issues.’

LAWRENCES STILL SHUT OUT

As we passed the 25th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence last week, Theresa May announced an annual Stephen Lawrence Day.

Just as she had commissioned the Undercover Policing Inquiry but restricted it to events in England and Wales, so May’s government gives an elevating hand to Stephen Lawrence’s memory then slaps it back down.

Whilst the annual commemoration may help people examine his legacy, Stephen’s loved ones are still being denied answers about what happened. The state is still protecting the corrupt police involved in spying on the family.

In 1998, five years after Stephen’s murder, the Macpherson inquiry examined the case and came to the famous conclusion that the Metropolitan Police were ‘institutionally racist’. Macpherson was meant to get to the bottom of the matter, but it was never even told about the Lawrences being spied on by undercover officers from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).

Spycop Peter Francis had been tasked by his SDS managers to ‘find dirt’ with which to discredit the Lawrence family and their associates. Later, at the time of the Macpherson inquiry, he suggested the unit should come clean to the Macpherson inquiry but was overruled by his superiors.

NOT JUST THE LAWRENCES

Stephen Lawrence’s campaign is just one of dozens of similar groups spied on and undermined by the SDS who worked hard to ensure the failings and racism of uniformed officers went unchecked. There had been a spate of racist attacks in South London before Stephen was killed. Two years earlier, 15 year old Rolan Adams had been murdered.

Rolan’s father Richard Adams said:

‘There is no doubt that had Rolan’s murder been investigated properly, Stephen Lawrence may still have been alive today.’

Instead, as with the Lawrences, the police resources that should have caught the teenager’s killers were spent instead on undermining the family’s quest for the truth.

NOT JUST THAT SPYCOP

The establishing of Stephen Lawrence Day cannot be meaningful while the state is still withholding the truth from Stephen’s family. It’s not just that the Home Secretary has repeatedly refused to meet Neville Lawrence. Last month we were finally told the fake name of SDS officer HN81, previously described as ‘a spy in the Lawrence family camp’. He was deployed as David Hagan.

But what was David Hagan’s real name? What did he report? Who else spied on them with him? Which other groups did Hagan spy on? What has he done since? Who ordered him to spy on the Lawrences?

The head of the SDS at the time of its spying on the Lawrences was an officer known only as HN58. Mitting has granted him full anonymity at the Inquiry, saying that because he has been married for a long time he is presumed to have been incapable of wrongdoing.

The spycops’ swathe of crimes, human rights abuses and counter-democratic stifling of campaigns has shocked all those who have heard of it. Yet, we only have partial details on a minority of officers. There is much, much more still below the waterline waiting to be revealed.

Though they are numerous, the black justice campaigns were a comparatively small proportion of the 1,000+ groups that were were spied on. Scores of people were fitted up with wrongful convictions and dozens of women deceived into long-term intimate relationships.

JUDGING THE JUDGE

All the victims deserve answers, as do the wider public whose democracy has been undermined by these agents paid out of public funds. To be effective, the Inquiry needs to understand what it means to be in a marginalised group and, under Mitting’s sole stewardship, it cannot do that.

The Macpherson inquiry had a panel of lay members whose experience was directly relevant to the issue. It is plain that Mitting should resign and hand over to a panel, or at least accept a panel to sit alongside him.

As the victims’ lawyer Phillippa Kaufmann QC told Mitting at an Inquiry hearing in February:

‘We have the usual white upper middle class elderly gentleman whose life experiences are a million miles away from those who were spied upon.’

With Mitting credulously granting police anonymity on dubious grounds and refusing to act on responses from those who were spied upon, Kaufmann led her legal team and the victims out of the February hearing.

Doreen Lawrence backed the walkout:

‘I want to know the names of the police officers who spied on me, my family and our campaign for justice. The chair is not allowing that, in my view, for reasons which are completely unjustifiable and unreasonable. Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister promised me a truly thorough, transparent and accountable inquiry.

‘This has turned into anything but that and before any more public money is spent on an Inquiry which does not achieve this, the chair should resign or continue with a panel which is not naive or old fashioned and which understands my concerns about policing and what I went through. Anything less than this will lead me to consider carefully whether I should continue to participate in this inquiry.’

A LAST REQUEST

Having expressed their concerns to both the Home Office and Mitting himself, last week victims delivered a letter to the Home Office calling for a panel to be appointed.

Three women who were deceived into relationships by undercover police officers – Andrea, Alison & Jessica – went with Neville Lawrence and Sharon Grant (widow of Bernie Grant, black Labour MP who was spied on) to personally hand the letter in.

Neville Lawrence explained:

‘We were grieving and someone felt it necessary to send people into my house to spy on us. The crime was outside my house but they spent the money to send undercover police into my house, that money could have been spent on finding the people who carried out the murder. I want answers.’

Mitting’s inclination towards secrecy makes the appointment of a panel all the more urgent; he has held more hearings in secret than in public. We need credible, independent people in there to hear the evidence rather than an uncritical judge drawing on his career of rubberstamping state surveillance.

Neville Lawrence is clear that the appointment of a panel of people from different backgrounds is make-or-break. If it the Inquiry doesn’t get that, he said:

‘I will withdraw from it. I will leave it alone because it’s a waste of my time. I’ve wasted two years already.’

With Amber Rudd’s departure from the Home Office, lawyers for spycops’ victims have already written to Sajid Javid. Will he meet with victims and restructure the Undercover Policing Inquiry so it can fulfil its purpose and reveal the truth about Britain’s political secret police?

The Undercover Policing Inquiry is in crisis. Over-running by years before it has even begun, with a new Chair who has more hearings in secret than in public, victims and the wider public are finding themselves shut out.

As the Inquiry sifts through the spycops deciding which ones get anonymity, it seems to make no difference what victims say, the professional liar police officers are taken at their word.

At the last hearing, the victims and their entire legal team walked out, saying there was no point in participating in the anonymity process.

“We are not prepared actively to participate in a process where the presence of our clients is pure window dressing, lacking all substance, lacking all meaning and which would achieve absolutely nothing other than lending this process the legitimacy that it doesn’t have and doesn’t deserve.”

It is over seven years since the undercover policing scandal broke, creating shock that the police could commit such abuses against social, animal, and environmental justice campaigners in our country. We have waited long enough. We want answers. We want the names of the officers who spied, and we want the list of groups they infiltrated and monitored.

On Wednesday 9 May the Inquiry is holding another preliminary hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Starting at 10am, it will conclude by 4pm. It will cover the more applications for anonymity by former spycops..

It is people like you, taking a stand for your right to campaign for positive change without being abused by the state, that will change history, making sure these abuses come to light and are prevented from ever happening again. Without public support, the police may get away with hiding what has happened, and be able to continue their abuses.

We will be outside the Royal Courts of Justice from 9am on Wednesday 9 May.

Come along to the picket and stand with the core participants to support their demands that the Inquiry releases the cover names, and opens up the files on people who have been spied upon.

Spread the word with the Facebook event.

Follow events on the day on Twitter.

The public inquiry into political undercover policing is in crisis, but has it ever been functional? It is as if they want to technically publish information whilst keeping it effectively secret.

Despite being set up more than three years ago with a projected finishing date of 2018, the Undercover Policing Inquiry is still in its preliminary stages. This waiting period has been so long that we have seen key figures die, including two former Home Secretaries, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, core participant victims of spycops and the Chair of the Inquiry itself, Lord Pitchford.

MITTING THE POINT

Pitchford promised to have ‘a presumption for openness’. There was alarm that the new choice of Chair, Sir John Mitting, would incline the opposite way due to his background in secret courts that almost invariably comply with government surveillance agencies.

The fears were well-founded, and a majority of the victims given core participant status at the Inquiry appealed for change in November 2017.

‘We are rapidly losing confidence in the Inquiry and in the abilities of John Mitting. He is rowing back on commitments made by the previous Chair, Christopher Pitchford, who stated the inquiry’s priority is to discover the truth and recognised the importance of hearing from both officers and their victims along with the need for this to be done in public as far as possible.’

It was ignored.

Mitting has shown himself to be gullible, taking police assertions at face value despite the fact that the Inquiry is into wrongdoing by trained police liars.

Last month victims and their lawyers walked out of a preliminary hearing on granting officers anonymity, saying:

‘We are not prepared actively to participate in a process where the presence of our clients is pure window dressing, lacking all substance, lacking all meaning and which would achieve absolutely nothing other than lending this process the legitimacy that it doesn’t have and doesn’t deserve.’

Victims are desperate for the Inquiry to fulfil its purpose. Keenly aware that the Met would like nothing more than a boycott that let them protect their secrets, the walkout was not a permanent move. Rather, it is an act of desperation as the victims’ good faith has been eroded by a process that goes out of its way to ignore them.

We want to tell our stories of being spied upon, but we cannot do it until we all know which of our friends and comrades was actually a police spy. We come eager to participate but the Inquiry’s acquiescence to police demands for secrecy means we are blindfolded and hogtied.

Stephen Lawrence’s father Neville has declared his loss of faith in Mitting and the Inquiry, and Doreen Lawrence has threatened to boycott the entire process if Mitting stays in charge.

PROTECTING THE GUILTY

Mitting grants anonymity to undercover officers even when the ‘independent risk assessor’ (a fellow police officer) says the risk of harm if they are named is low.

A few days ago we learned that officer HN15 – whose risk assessor said the danger of harm is high – is in fact Mark Jenner. He has had his real and cover names in the mainstream media along with his photo for over five years without, as far as we know, coming to any harm.

How can other officers’ risk assessments still be taken seriously? How can we trust in a Chair who believes such twaddle and then acts to shield abusers from accountability?

Last week, thirteen women deceived into relationships by spycops have demanded change from the Home Secretary.

‘Andrea‘ explained:

‘the Chair holds the rights of perpetrators in higher regard than the rights of victims. He clearly sees the officers’ human rights as sacrosanct, withholding the names of the spycops who invaded our homes, our families and our intimate lives…

‘Secrecy pervades this so-called ‘public’ inquiry, where officers who abused our rights are granted private hearings with the Chair to convince him to protect their privacy.’

But the Inquiry’s bunker attitude pre-dates Mitting’s appointment and goes beyond what he makes rulings on.

PUBLIC HEARINGS TURNING THE PUBLIC AWAY

The hearings have been held in the Royal Courts of Justice, with a public gallery that can’t quite squeeze 100 people in. With 200 significantly affected victims designated as core participants, most of them are physically prevented from attending the hearings, even before any of the wider public want to attend.

So far, only one preliminary hearing has had to turn people away – perhaps because the Inquiry won’t cover travel costs for victims who want to attend – but that will surely increase as the Inquiry moves towards hearing evidence.

Last month’s hearing took place on the same day as one for the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Grenfell one was livestreamed, but the spycops Inquiry chooses not to let the world see what it is doing. The best it does is issue a transcript a day or two later in a bizarrely formatted PDF.

PUBLICATION UNSEEN

Much of the Undercover Policing Inquiry website is pages with links to dozens of PDFs bearing uninformative titles like ‘Detailed consultation document,’ ‘Chairman’s note on risk assessments,’ and ‘Ruling on undertakings’.

When scrolling through the list – one page is already at 66 different PDFs, some with the same name as each other – bear in mind that the Inquiry process hasn’t properly begun and the site is a small fraction of the size that it will end up.

A huge proportion of the PDFs on the site are ‘flat’, ie made of pictures of documents rather than text, which means they can’t be wordsearched and the contents won’t appear in websearches.

The search function on the website doesn’t assist. It claims there is nothing on the site about undercover officer Mark Kennedy.

A search of the site via Google turns up 56 results.

NAMING THE OFFICERS, A BIT

There was some hope of relief when they published a page listing undercover officers. However, that only lists four items of information about each officer:

• Cover name
• Herne nominal (without explaining what the term means)
• Groups they infiltrated
• Years of deployment

As ‘Alison‘, who was deceived into a relationship by a man she knew as Mark Cassidy said:

‘There is no restriction order on his real name: Mark Jenner. Yet his real name – and the real names of other confirmed officers – are not listed on this table, making it hard for the public to keep track of who’s who. It feels as if they’re always trying to keep as much hidden as possible.’

There is no link to an officer’s statements, independent assessments or anything else that is buried elsewhere on the site.

For the officers as yet unnamed, there is a link to one document that includes a ruling about them. Once the officer is named, they remove that one link and leave the reader with nothing but the four categories.

Page from undercover officer Mark Jenner’s 1996 diary, showing his attendance at a UCATT meeting

Even within that, the information is incomplete. Looking at the groups they infiltrated, they average less than two per officer. The Inquiry has previously admitted that more than 1,000 groups were spied on which, divided by the number of officers, means it must average as at least seven each. Every infiltrated group has a right to know. Why can’t we see the full list?

With the named officers, we can even name some of the other unmentioned groups they infiltrated, yet the Inquiry won’t admit it.

Whistleblower officer Peter Francis has publicly said his list is incomplete, as it omits Kingsway College Anti Fascist Group, which became Movement for Justice whilst he was infiltrating it.

Mark Jenner’s list doesn’t mention anything to do with trade unions, yet he was known to be a member of construction union UCATT and targeted other unions including the RMT, Unison, CPSA and TGWU. He was also a regular at meetings and on picket lines.

NO RESPONSE

The list of officers is incomplete in other ways. The section on those whose cover names won’t be published (‘Table Three : Where The Cover Name is Restricted’) only has has three officers, code-numbered HN7, HN123 and HN333.

It does not include others who belong in it, for example, HN23, HN40, HN58 and HN241 who were decided upon on 20 February 2018.

This is not a matter of the page not being updated, as ‘Table Two: Where the cover name is not known’ includes officers who were decided on in the same ruling (HN322 and HN348).

We emailed the Inquiry about this on 18 March. They have ignored it.

Trying to contact them on social media would be equally futile as their Twitter bio specifically says:

‘Tweets will not be responded to.’

END THE CULTURE OF SECRECY

The Undercover Policing Inquiry has already cost over £9m and despite its glacial pace, exclusion and secrecy, it insists it does not need extra staff. If it believes it is competent, that implies it is this way by design.

This is not just an overpaid underskilled worker making a bad website. The Inquiry site, the one-way social media and the refusal to livestream hearings are all online symptoms of a wider fundamental belief that the Inquiry does not have to properly engage with the public. The only substantial information it has given has been about officers already exposed by the people who were spied on.

Mitting has had more secret hearings than public. He not only refuses to answer key questions but rebuffs requests to explain his refusal, saying ‘I know more than you do’.

It is all an extension of his and the Inquiry’s belief in themselves as establishment overseers, which gives the process an inflated trust in the police whose wrongdoing the Inquiry is supposed to expose.

Enough is enough. The clue is in the name – it is a public inquiry. It takes the public’s money, it exists to make public the truth about the abuses of Britain’s political secret police. Nothing less will do.

Poll Tax Riot pamphlet cover

Twenty eight years ago today, 31 March 1990, Trafalgar Square hosted a major demonstration against the poll tax that became a riot.

The Conservative regime’s plan to change local government funding property rates based on the value of the house to a charge per person had caused uproar. Eventually, it would be overturned, and take Thatcher’s premiership with it.

Among the crowd on the March 1990 demonstration was John Barker, aka Special Demonstration Squad officer John Dines.

Maintaining character, Dines later designed, printed and sold a benefit poster for those arrested on the day. He also wrote an account for the subsequent Poll Tax Riot pamphlet.

Many officers from Britain’s political secret police were agents provocateur both in deed and in the written word. Just last week Roger Pearce was identified as the author of what the Undercover Policing Inquiry called ‘virulently anti-police’ articles for Freedom Newspaper in the early 1980s. Twenty years later, Mark Kennedy was a frequent contributor of such invective to Indymedia under the name Lumsk.

In between, in 1990 John Dines penned this:

MR. SWEENEY AND ME

As I lay face down in a gutter in Whitehall, with a policeman’s boot in the back of my neck and his two mates wrenching my arms from my shoulders, their macho sergeant bawling instructions on how best to incapacitate me, I briefly pondered my ‘wrongdoing’ in trying to prevent someone I‘d never met before from being arrested for shouting his opposition to the Poll Tax. The kick in the forehead diverted my thoughts and l was bundled into one police van, manacled so tightly my hands went blue, then dragged across the road, booted and thumped as l was pushed into a second van.

We sped off horns, sirens blaring madly, through red traffic lights, along the wrong side of the road and up pavements. l was sure that the guy I had tried to help who was being trampled upon by his captors must be the world’s most wanted fugitive. None of it, this was just members of the world’s finest police force maintaining the Queens’ Peace.

SDS officer John Dines whilst undercover as John Barker

l was one of the thousands and thousands of people who had left Kennington Park about an hour earlier. I was with a group of friends, all much like me, not really poor but no spare cash at the end (or beginning) of the week.

Some of us were working, some of us on the dole, some on housing benefit, some squatting because they couldn’t afford to pay for a reasonable home, others because there aren’t any homes available, some folks had worked all their lives to provide for their families, some had never been able to find work.

We all had something in common – we were all working class, and in today’s wonderful British society we had become part of the growing, but powerful underclass. The Poll Tax was another financial burden to us. like all the other benefit and welfare cuts we’ve experienced, particularly in recent years. We’ve got no money left to pay now though, but “ode seems to listen or care. Well, we came to bloody shout it loudly enough so that we couldn’t be ignored. and didn’t we shout?

I was surprised by the huge, vast crowds who had turned up to demonstrate their opposition to the poll tax. Sure, there were many politicos espousing the virtues of other terms of extremist control. But overwhelmingly those present were ordinary families, pensioners, community groups, disabled folk, there were musicians, there was dancing, there were balloons, there was anger, annoyance and frustration – but our march was peaceful. There were ‘suits’ in the crowd, there were cops in the air, they were high on buildings with their telescopic sights and their focused binoculars, their videos were running and soon so were they, for this was going to be our day.

Such was the enormity of the crowd that the march eventually bottlenecked from Trafalgar Square to Lambeth Bridge. And then the realisation – we were stopped opposite Downing Street, the home of our democratic leader, “dear Maggie”.

Nevertheless we stood in reverence, the occasional ribald comment of course, but there were no bricks, there was no barrage, there was no onslaught on the thin blue line guarding the entrance to No. 10. After all, we had no weapons, no truncheons, we had no specially designed riot overalls, no helmets and visors, no jackboots, no leaders directing operations, we didn’t come charging on horseback, our dogs were strictly anti-Poll Tax mongrels.

I remember children spilling onto a nearby glass verge, somebody uncoupling fencing to prevent us blindly falling over it, people sitting in the roadway, nowhere to move, penned in by barriers manned by cops. In front of us thousands of marchers, behind us many thousands more.

Obviously the Metropolitan Police Force’s expertly trained riot cops couldn’t handle such a confrontation. Passivity could not be tolerated. A foray by six brave Constables led by an Inspector was easily repelled. We weren’t going to be arrested for sitting on the bloody ground. Not to be defeated (not yet anyway), a charge by about 20 cops, truncheons out, fists, boots flying into kids, women, the old, whoever got in their way – l was soon to meet the gutter.

There were five of us in a cell made for one; 63 on a corridor of cells cosily constructed for 10 people. Food, no problem there. We each got a packet of custard cream biscuits after seven hours – shame I don’t eat them! Drinks, yep as much water as your bladder could hold, because the toilet didn’t flush. Air, sure, we swapped the contents of each other’s lungs for about 14 hours. Solicitor. I’m definitely allowed one of them, just a shame he wasn’t bloody interested. He reassured me that I could be charged with causing an affray even if I was acting on my own. There was nothing he could do for me however and it wasn‘t worth his while coming to the station (his words). He must have known I’d be on legal aid.

What about speaking to the lay visitors? Well, why not. Why indeed, these middle aged arseholes clad in Harrods’ latest fashions, blue rinses, adorned with jewellery, 1 lb. of plums in their gobs, just out of the ‘Upstairs…’ part of Eaton Square, they’ll understand how I feel, they’re in touch with local issues. The scumbags could hardly bring themselves to inhale the putrefied air in the cell corridor. Someone further along just beat me in telling them to go back home, only I think she said “why don’t you fuck off?”

‘Disarm Authority Arm Your Desires’ – Poll Tax Riot poster designed & distributed by undercover police officer John Dines to raise funds for those arrested in the riot on 31 March 1990

Cellmates: a traveller got himself arrested for shouting and using a profane four lettered word. A shoe salesman who protested to a senior police officer about the manner in which a person was arrested quickly found himself on the floor of a police van with a black eye. Still, the salesman was black, so guess he must have deserved it! An engineer was amongst a group of peaceful protesters who were charged at by cops on horses, he was one of those who fell over so he must have been guilty of something.

And, finally, through the cell door walked this man mountain. 18 stone, 6’4”, beer belly, flash leather jacket, mohair trousers, crocodile skin shoes, Armani shirt – must be a fraudster – not at all. “I was on my way back home”, his story goes, “when I walked into this riot. Never have liked cops, so thought I’d have a bit of action”. This colossus found a half brick and with deadly aim caught a cop on the back of the head; out like a light he said. He was then jumped on by two riot clad officers, but our hero threw them off and eventually it took six of the bastards and burst eardrums to restrain him.

Tarzan could well understand their anger however, for he had once been a paratrooper and had served the good old British Army on the streets of Belfast, eh! A philosophical individual, but he was upset on two counts: firstly, his mum would go apeshit when she found out, secondly, having been arrested for “incitement to riot”, he was bound to lose a new job he was due to start the following month – he was to become a Prison Officer! Amongst other things, this character merited some in depth discussion, but I was halted from discovering the reasons for his actions, bearing in mind his former and intended employment, when he simply said “I fucking hate cops”.

Some 14 hours after being arrested, I was taken to the custody centre where some young Sweeney type ’intellectual’ asked me if I was a member of Militant, what an insult, and then suggested I must be “some sort of socialist”, before letting me go, warning me not to fail to turn up at court to answer my charge.

Well, l did fail to turn up, so bollocks Mr. Sweeney. As I walked home I saw iron barricades still strewn along the length of Whitehall, a crushed cop’s cap lay amongst the rubbish on the pavement, hundreds of ’No Poll Tax’ placards were discarded everywhere, some decorating the Cenotaph, that meaningless monolith in the centre of Whitehall.

The scale of the events I had missed were becoming excitingly apparent. The stench of burning wafted down Whitehall and as I reached Trafalgar Square I saw the ashen remains of buildings in Northumberland Avenue, the smell of wasted Portakabins was now overpowering, smoke still billowing around Trafalgar Square, fire fighters still dousing neighbouring premises. The shattered windows of the South African Embassy further lifted my spirits and I couldn’t resist an ear to ear grin as a mob of miserable cops walked towards me, peering out from under the brims of their helmets, hunched shoulders, literally ’plodding’ along. Though l had missed it, I knew the bastards had taken a real good hiding.

Whilst undercover, John Dines deceived activist Helen Steel into an intimate relationship. They moved in together, living in a house he had found for them. It backed on to the home of the family of Winston Silcott’s family, who were campaigning for his conviction to be overturned after he and others were framed by the police for the death of PC Keith Blakelock in 1985.

Soon after after Silcott had his conviction quashed in November 1991, Dines’ undercover deployment ended and he disappeared from his activist life.

His abuse of Steel was one of the cases in the Metropolitan Police’s landmark apology of 2015. He now lives in Australia, training police in infiltration and surveillance of political activists.

Here’s Helen Steel talking about her relationship with Dines in 2014:

Last Wednesday, 21 March 2018, Jenny Jones (aka Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb) probed the government about Britain’s political secret police in the House of Lords.

Her question had been submitted in advance, and it focused on what the government knew about the disgraced spycops units.

The Special Demonstration Squad was directly funded by the Home Office for its first twenty years. The government must have wanted something back for the millions it spent, and it received reports from the SDS.

But when the government commissioned ex-Audit Commission director Stephen Taylor to investigate and report in 2015, he couldn’t find a single document anywhere in any of the Home Office archives.

How much the government knew of the detail of the units’ tactics, such as the psychological and sexual abuse of women, is unknown. With that in mind, Jones challenged the Home Office Minister, Baroness Williams of Trafford.

As there had been a mass walkout of the victims and their legal team earlier in the day, other lords took up that issue to highlight the crisis of confidence in the public inquiry.

Here is the full video and transcript of the session (the video has closed captions):

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party): I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper [To ask Her Majesty’s Government what communications they have had, over the last 30 years, with police forces regarding the tactic of undercover police officers forming sexual relationships to develop their cover stories].

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Conservative): My Lords, as part of its terms of reference the undercover policing inquiry is investigating ​the state of awareness of undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government since 1968.

The Home Office is a core participant in that inquiry and is in the process of making disclosure to the inquiry of material relevant to the terms of reference. The inquiry will report its findings once all the evidence has been reviewed.

Baroness Jones: Well, I thank the noble lady for her response which, of course, is not an answer to my Question.

I’m not sure if she is actually aware that, over a period of 24 years from 1985 to 2009, almost every single year there was a state-sponsored sexual relationship between a police officer and a woman who at no point was accused of doing anything illegal – not arrested, not accused – I just don’t understand how the Minister can sit there and think that this is alright.

This strikes at the heart of the ethics and the integrity of our police forces, and of course our security services. I must stress that the cases we know about are only the ones we have heard about, those are the only police names in the public realm. We don’t know all of them. Until we know all the police undercover names we won’t know how many victims there were.

I am also concerned about the Inquiry. The Minister may know that there was a walkout today by the whole legal team of the women involved and the women themselves. So how is the Government going to restore the credibility of that inquiry?

Baroness Williams: The noble lady refers to ‘state-sponsored’. I would refer her to the actual terms of reference of the inquiry, which is to ‘ascertain the state of awareness of undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government’. That is precisely what the inquiry was set up to do.

In terms of the walkout of today, I have been made aware of that walkout, and I am aware that the hearings are still ongoing. I would encourage all core participants – indeed, anyone impacted by undercover policing – to participate fully in the inquiry so that we can learn the lessons and get to the truth.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour & Co-operative Party): My Lords, can the noble lady confirm this is a very serious matter? Notwithstanding anything that comes out of the inquiry and the recommendations that follow, that she is absolutely confident that robust procedures are now in place and that it can never happen again?

Baroness Williams: My Lords, I would love to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that certain things could never happen again, but nobody can legislate for the odd rogue undertaking or the malicious intent of people. Therefore, one cannot be absolutely certain that it could never happen again. What one can do is put measures in place to try and mitigate as far as is possible [so] that it never happens again.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-affiliated): Does the noble Minister agree that undercover policing is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism and crime and that, provided it is properly regulated and standards are adhered to, we shouldn’t judge the majority of very brave police officers that go undercover by the misdeeds of a few?

Baroness Williams: I must completely concur with the noble Lord. He is absolutely right, so much crime has been unearthed by the use of undercover policing. As I say, there are now strict rules in place to mitigate unacceptable behaviour from going on and I couldn’t agree more with him.

Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat): We know that this inquiry has already taken three years, and it’s expected to take another year before the victims get answers – campaigners walking out in protest today notwithstanding. We also know that the Special Demonstration Squad has been disbanded. But it would be naive to think that all embedded undercover work has ceased.

What assurances can the Minister give that the culture, practice, instructions to and supervision of undercover officers have already changed to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, no man or woman will ever be subjected to these practices again?

Baroness Williams: The noble lady makes a very helpful point, because the policing Code of Ethics makes it clear that police officers should not use their professional position to, ‘establish or pursue an improper sexual or emotional relationship with a person with whom you come into contact in the course of your work’. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides the legal framework for the lawful deployment of undercover officers as covert human intelligence sources [CHIS]. We also have the 2014 CHIS codes of practice.

In relation to the point she makes about the length of time that the inquiry has taken, the slight extension to the length of the inquiry is due to purely the sheer number of pieces of information the inquiry has to look at.

Lord Faulks (Conservative): My Lords, I understand that the walkout from the inquiry was because of a sense that it was important that the individual police officers were actually identified by name.

I think my noble friend the Minister confirm that, by definition, undercover police officers have a cover name, and that, whatever the importance of getting to the bottom of what went on in this inquiry, it is important that they retain that anonymity, because that is a pre-eminent part of what they do.

Baroness Williams: My noble friend is absolutely right, and of course it protects the safety of those people as well.

Lord Soley (Labour): So, to confirm, this is not just a matter of rules and regulations? If it went on for so long, there must have been a serious management failure, because if there is the relationship between a senior officer and the person doing the job, that relationship is crucial in terms of keeping a check on their behaviour. That seems to me, as an outsider, not to have happened, and it’s what we ought to focus on.

Baroness Williams: I wouldn’t like to speak for the chair of the inquiry, but I am sure that some of the institutional failures that happened way back in the day will what the inquiry looks at.

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat): In the walkout today, the leading QC who was representing the victims said that the walkout was due to the legal teams not being able to participate in a meaningful way. How have we got to a position where this has been going on for three years, cost £9,000,000 and senior QCs feel they cannot participate in a meaningful way?

Baroness Williams: My Lords, the people who walked out will have their reasons for walking out, but I know that the Home Secretary has full confidence in the chairman to carry out the inquiry in a way that gets to the truth of what happened.

The recent hearing of the Undercover Policing Inquiry was a world away from the stereotype of legal proceedings. Whilst other courtrooms seize up with the stale formality and impenetrable legalese, this session was awash with dramatic force that engulfed everyone present. And not in a good way.

The Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, was sitting in for his second public hearing after taking over from Christopher Pitchford. Concerns victims had about the Inquiry under Mitting’s predecessor have only multiplied as the bias towards police secrecy becomes markedly worse.

NEITHER TRUTH NOR JUSTICE

Mitting said that he would not tolerate the Metropolitan Police’s former tactic of ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny‘ (NCND) being used to withhold from the public any information about large numbers of officers.

In his first public hearing in November 2017, Mitting unequivocally stated:

‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny has no part at all to play in Special Demonstration Squad deployments’

Yet he has essentially continued the Met’s policy of NCND, rebranding it by saying that revealing any details about a spycop is ‘a potential breach of an officer’s Article 8 rights’, the human right to a private life. This has been the basis of Mitting issuing blanket anonymity to batches of undercover officers in recent months.

Effectively, Mitting is saying the rights of violators are more important than the rights of the violated. Because he regards the officers’ human rights as paramount, the public won’t be told the names of these spycops who invaded citizens’ lives and breached Article 8 rights – as well as Article 3 (freedom from torture), Article 6 (the right to a fair trial), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 14 (freedom from discrimination).

The overprotection of police privacy is now Mitting’s standard procedure. He looks at what the police officer says, and then at a risk assessment performed by another police officer, then he publishes redacted versions of these statements and issues a ‘minded-to note’ of his intentions.

Dutifully, we then go to hearings where Mitting basically goes along with what the police have recommended. He appears oblivious to the possibility that an officer might want to be anonymous because they have something to hide.

The one exception was the U-turn on Rick Gibson, whose real name is to be released, but only because the Undercover Research Group presented shocking new information about him deceiving women into relationships. Without his erstwhile comrades coming forward with the name the officer had used, the groups he infiltrated and when, this investigation would have been impossible.

NO NAMES = NO EVIDENCE = NO TRUTH

This is the fundamental issue of the Inquiry – we need to know the cover names used by officers in advance, so that those spied upon can give testimony on what the officers did. Without that, the Inquiry is reduced to the police selectively self-reporting.

The hearing earlier this month was concerned with seven officers, all of whom Mitting was intending to grant full anonymity.

Counsel for the victims, Phillippa Kaufmann QC, began bluntly:

KAUFMANN: ‘We are in no better position now than we were before the last hearing. On the contrary, we feel the situation has got worse…

‘these oral hearings, or the invitation of written submissions from us in advance, look increasingly like window dressing and look increasingly pointless in terms of actually having any realistic prospect of having any influence upon your decision-making. That is a matter of great public concern’

RUNNING INTO A BRICK WALL

Two of the officers were known by the code numbers HN23 and HN40. We are offered the bare minimum of information about them, basically just telling us that they existed. Mitting claims publishing their cover names could lead to the real names being discovered which, in turn, could lead to the risk of serious violence against the officers.

HN23 was deployed against one group and reported on other groups in the 1990s. They fear their friends and family will feel betrayed that they kept their spycop past a secret.

HN40 was deployed against two groups in the last decade of the existence of the SDS (ie 1998-2008). They were prosecuted under their false name. Despite this evidence of perjury and perverting the course of justice, the Inquiry seeks to fully protect the officer.

Kaufmann said the refusal to say anything at all amounted to Neither Confirm Nor Deny. Mitting responded:

MITTING: ‘With respect it is not a Neither Confirm Nor Deny approach. It is stronger than that. It is a flat refusal to say anything about the deployment in the open.’

Kaufmann then asked, if we can’t know about the officer can we at least be told why that decision has been taken?

MITTING: ‘I am afraid that HN23 as HN40, they are examples of deployments where you are going to meet a brick wall of silence.’

KAUFMANN: ‘It strikes us as extraordinary that we cannot even be told, for example, was this officer engaged in a deployment in relation to left wing groups or right wing groups. How on earth can the disclosure of that fact alone put that officer at risk?

Mitting was aloof and unrelenting, waiting for her to finish speaking and simply repeating himself.

MITTING: ‘I am afraid you are meeting a brick wall in these two cases and others.’

Maya Sikand, representing whistleblower SDS officer Peter Francis, spoke next about HN23.

SIKAND: ‘We come here, we hope to assist but we are not assisting because you will say, “Well, actually, no, this is a brick wall”. So it does beg the question as to why it is we are invited here’

Sikand then raised the stakes, saying that Peter Francis knows who HN23 is and the groups that were infiltrated.

She said of HN23:

SIKAND: ‘This is an officer who would have valuable evidence to give you about the nature of his deployment and what he was asked to do would be something that he needs to give evidence to you about, because it is likely that there was a level of violence authorised by Special Demonstration Squad managers in his deployments.

‘The difficulty with not disclosing his cover name is that you cannot have his evidence properly tested other than by those with whom he possibly perpetrated that violence or who were witnesses to it, in that group that he infiltrated. So that’s why we say it is of particular importance that you do disclose this cover name.’

Moving on to HN40, Sikand added:

SIKAND: ‘It is Peter Francis’s view that once more this officer would have valuable evidence to give you about the violence that was permitted by Special Demonstration Squad managers to be used by Special Demonstration Squad officers.’

At this point Peter Francis interjected in person.

PROFESSIONAL LIARS

Francis started by reminding Mitting that he and his fellow SDS officers lied professionally, that they had been trained to make whatever they say sound plausible.

Rising to his feet, Francis contrasted the dangers faced by SDS officers with those of former drugs squad officer Neil Woods who was sitting in the public gallery. 

Pointing Woods out to the court, Francis expounded:

FRANCIS: ‘This man here is a former undercover officer himself, Neil Woods, the author of “Good Cop, Bad War“. He personally has led to more imprisonment of individuals totalling approximately 1,000 years for his deployment from 1993 all the way to 2007…

‘That one man has led to more imprisonment than the entire Special Demonstration Squad from 1968 to 2008. He is sitting here in his own name. I am sure he doesn’t mind saying he’s actually brought his wife along today. He walks in society freely and yet there is hundreds upon hundreds of people who would like to pay that man back…

‘I have great, huge, concerns that these professional liars are spinning you, the Inquiry and definitely these poor solicitors they are working with here.’

LAWRENCE SPYMASTER IS PRESUMED FLAWLESS

The court moved on to what Mitting conceded is ‘the problematic case of HN58’.

HN58 was the senior manager at the SDS during a crucial period in the late 1990s. It was five years after Stephen Lawrence was killed, and the Macpherson inquiry was investigating corruption and racism in the Metropolitan Police’s murder investigation. That inquiry was supposed to get to the truth and be the last word on the issue. But unbeknownst to them, the SDS was spying on the Lawrence campaign for justice, effectively trying to undermine the inquiry.

Mitting gave a clear statement in November 2017, saying that he wants this Inquiry to succeed where Macpherson and other previous processes have failed.

Peter Francis, who as an SDS officer was tasked to ‘find dirt’ with which to discredit the Lawrences and their campaign, said it is essential that HN58’s real name is released so his role can be discussed. Francis explained to the court:

FRANCIS: ‘I personally have promised Mr Lawrence, as in Stephen Lawrence’s father… that I would do absolutely everything for him because I and the Special Demonstration Squad let him down in the last Macpherson Inquiry.’

But withholding the real name is not the only issue with HN58. Like most SDS managers, he had previously been an undercover officer. We want the cover names published. With HN58, where there is evidence of wrongdoing as a manager, it suggests possible wrongdoing when he was an officer. His cover name must be published to allow the people he spied upon to come forward with their experiences.

REAL MEN DON’T LIE

But Mitting intends to withhold HN58’s real and cover names for three reasons:

1. ‘There is no known allegation of misconduct against him’.

This is absurd. How can we make any allegations against an officer if we don’t know who they are? Tell us the name and let those they spied on come forward to say if there was misconduct, otherwise Mitting is conducting his own mini-trials based solely on police evidence. Kaufmann bluntly told Mitting, ‘it is not a reason that actually makes any sense’.

2. ‘The nature of his deployment’.
This is impossible to comment on without knowing any details, but it’s clear that officers exaggerate the danger of their deployments.

3. ‘What is known of his personal and family life make it unlikely it would be necessary to investigate possible misconduct even if details of his deployment were made public’.

This is even weirder than point 1, and nobody seemed to understand what Mitting was alluding to. When challenged, he replied ‘I know more about this man than you do’.

Exactly what he meant had to be teased out of him. Eventually he said it.

MITTING: ‘We have had examples of undercover male officers who have gone through more than one long-term permanent relationship, sometimes simultaneously.

‘There are also officers who have reached a ripe old age who are still married to the same woman that they were married to as a very young man. The experience of life tells one that the latter person is less likely to have engaged in extra-marital affairs than the former.’

There were gasps of incredulity around the court. Does Mitting really believe that if a man has stayed married to one woman for a long time he will not have deceived women he spied on into sexual relationships? And that we can be so confident of this that we don’t need to check if it applies in every case?

The idea that men do not hide affairs from their wives, or have arrangements where affairs are tolerated, is utterly bizarre. It is patently untrue, as we already know from other spycops. Several are known to have stayed married to the same person (at least until the truth was exposed by those they spied on), including the infamous Mark Kennedy who had relationships with four women who have now reached legal settlements with the Met.

A man possessed of opinions such as Mitting’s has no place running an Inquiry with sexual abuse of women and institutional sexism at its core.

CRIMES IGNORED

This moment also made clear that Mitting had been using ‘misconduct’ exclusively as a euphemism for ‘deceiving women into sexual relationships’. He had already made the women a special case at the November hearing, saying they deserved full answers, but not mentioning any other groups of victims.

It’s important to remember that sexual abuse was only one element of the spycops’ criminal misconduct. Assault, identity theft, incitement, burglary, perjury and perverting the course of justice were all commonplace. Mark Ellison QC found that not only did spycops lie to courts and spy on lawyer-client meetings, they also withheld evidence that could have exonerated accused people.

Officers have admitted to the Inquiry that they were arrested and prosecuted whilst undercover, yet Mitting has apparently decided this is not misconduct worthy of consideration, let alone telling the victims about.

As Alison, who was deceived into a five year relationship by SDS officer Mark Jenner, wrote in the Guardian last week:

‘Rather than one senior judge, this inquiry requires an independent panel of experts, along the lines of the one that advised Sir William Macpherson in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, or the Hillsborough Independent Panel.’

WHAT’S THE POINT?

Helen Steel was deceived into a two year relationship by undercover police officer John Dines. He was only exposed through her diligent research.

Having represented herself in the same courts for the McLibel trial, the longest trial in English history, Steel is now representing herself at the Undercover Policing Inquiry, but in effect she spoke for many:

STEEL: ‘Frankly the way that the Inquiry is currently conducting this process gives the core participants absolutely no faith that it is interested in learning the truth because it is basically believing everything the police says and saying, “I don’t need to hear you because you haven’t got anything you can tell us”…

‘it is just a pointless waste of money if we are not being told enough information to effectively participate this Inquiry. It is not going to get to the truth and the whole purpose of this Inquiry is to stop the human rights abuses that were being committed by these units. You can’t do that without our participation and it is a joke that we are being excluded from this process. It is an insulting joke.’

The victims should be heard. They – the people who brought the issue into the light – are the most keen to have the truth publicly established, but they are repeatedly running into Mitting’s brick wall. His excessive faith in police integrity, and refusal to be substantially swayed from that trust, is steering the Inquiry far from its goal.

Last week the Inquiry announced that, despite all that was said at the hearing, it will withhold the real and cover names as intended (with the exception of probably releasing the real name of the now-deceased Rick Gibson). In other words, if an officer is still married to the person they were with at the time of deployment then they are assumed to be blameless and will be protected from scrutiny.

The Inquiry cannot fulfil its purpose like this. Something fundamental must change if there is to be any point in it at all.

Christopher Alder

WHERE: Victoria Square, Hull HU1 3DX

WHEN: 1pm, 31 March 2018

Christopher Alder was born and brought up in Hull. He joined the army at 16, and served in the Parachute Regiment for six years, including the Falklands War.

On March 31 1998, the 37 year old father of two was out in Hull city centre for the evening. At a club, he got into a disagreement which led to the other person being ejected from the venue. That person waited outside and, when it closed at 2am, Christopher was confronted and knocked unconscious.

He later regained consciousness and was taken to hospital. As is common with head concussion, when he came round he was confused and volatile, asking paramedics and nurses “Where am I? What’s happened?”.

Police were called and he was arrested in the small hours of April 1st. Medical staff say he was dragged out, but police claim he walked unaided. He was put into the police van, his hands cuffed behind his back. When he arrived at the police station he was unconscious and his trousers were undone.

He was dragged in and put face down on the lobby floor. The last eleven minutes of his life were captured on the police CCTV. He lay there, choking on his own blood which pooled on the floor in front of his mouth. The police officers stood around, saying he was ‘right as rain’, joking and making made monkey noises.

Christopher’s clothes were subsequently destroyed by a West Yorkshire Police team investigating the death and never subjected to forensic examination.

During the inquest, on more than 150 occasions the five officers involved refused to answer questions. The jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. When there is an unlawful killing, there is an unlawful killer. Despite this, the Crown Prosecution Service initially refused to bring charges. The officers were finally charged with manslaughter in 2002, but the trial collapsed and the judge ordered the jury to find all five officers not guilty.

In April 2004, the BBC broadcast a leaked copy of the CCTV footage. It was the first time anyone had heard the audio, complete with the jokes and monkey noises. The Home Secretary ordered the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate. None of the officers co-operated.

Later in 2004, despite some of them still being in their 30s, four of the five officers were granted early retirement on stress-related medical grounds and received lump-sum compensation payments of £44,000-£66,000. They thus avoided any disciplinary proceedings, and protected their pensions.

In November 2011, Christopher’s body was discovered in the mortuary at Hull Royal Infirmary, eleven years after his family believed they had buried him. It had been used to show police officers autopsy procedures. His family had been given the body of 77 year old Grace Kamara, presumably the only other black person in the morgue at the time.

Christopher’s son Leon Wilson took the Home Office to the High Court in an attempt to get the case reopened, but it was dismissed.

Janet Alder

Christopher’s sister Janet Alder has been an indefatigable campaigner for justice ever since her brother was killed.

In 2013, after it was revealed that spycops had targeted the family of Stephen Lawrence, all forces were instructed to conduct a review of their files for similar acts. Humberside Police admitted spying on Janet.

The Crown Prosecution Service found in 2015 that not only had she and her supporters been spied on during Christopher’s six week inquest, but police had also eavesdropped on conversations with lawyers, breaching lawyer-client confidentiality.

The CPS also found:

‘members of a surveillance team were directed to undertake, and did undertake, surveillance with a broader remit than that allowed for in the authorisations’

They concluded that this surveillance was ‘not properly authorised’.

Piers Arnold, of the CPS’ senior crime and terrorism division, said:

‘It is difficult to see how any such targeted surveillance could have been justified or directed at issues of public order which was the written justification for each of the surveillance authorities.

‘Following the family of an alleged victim of police negligence/brutality and their legal representative instructed for an ongoing inquest into that death, whether or not it involved eavesdropping, would involve a high level of intrusion and require good reasons. No such reasons are discernible from the evidence.’

Despite all this, the CPS refused to bring any charges against any officers involved in spying on Janet.

At the same time, the Undercover Policing Inquiry turned down Janet’s application to be a core participant at the Inquiry. Others who are core participants were, and continue to be, outraged by this. We stand with Janet and her family’s struggle for justice. We have been proud to have her speak at our meetings alongside other victims of spycops.

The IPCC looked into the surveillance and found two officers should face gross misconduct charges. Humberside Police disagreed, but in November 2017 were forced to relent.

Janet reacted, saying:

‘While I welcome this news I still don’t expect much will come out of this. Over the years I may appear pessimistic but I have been right every time.

‘I want to know who it was that gave permission to do this, why they were doing it and what they found out and I want those responsible to be held accountable. I don’t think those in charge are facing any hearing.’

We are still waiting for those hearings to happen.

Janet has called a march in Hull to commemorate Christopher on the 20th anniversary of his death. Please share this information and join us there, in solidarity with Christopher, Janet and all victims of state brutality and spying.

Debenham’s Luton branch, July 1987

Once again, police self-investigations have been contacting activists who were spied on, asking for co-operation.

The latest activity centres around Operation Sparkler/Operation Nitrogen, which is examining evidence that undercover police officer Bob Lambert planted incendiary devices in the Harrow branch of Debenham’s in 1987.

Lambert was one of a group of three animal rights activists who were intent on damaging the stores in protest at their sale of fur. The branches were simultaneously attacked. Two of the activists, Geoff Shepherd and Andrew Clarke, were jailed. Lambert has been named as the third person. It is a charge he strenuously denies.

But if it wasn’t Lambert, who was it? Three people planted devices, so either there was a fourth person in the group whose existence has never been mentioned and who Lambert allowed to get away, or else Lambert is lying and he did it. There appears to be no third option.

Either way, it’s clear that Lambert’s evidence was withheld from the court at the original trial, which means Shepherd and Clarke’s convictions are unsafe in the same way that fifty now-quashed convictions of other spied-upon activists were.

MET FORCED TO INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES

Faced with such strong evidence against Lambert, in April 2016 the Met reopened their investigation.

In January last year it was revealed that over £250,000 had already been spent, nobody had been interviewed under caution, and Met lawyers thought the report would be finished in July 2017. We’re still waiting.

Bob Lambert whilst undercover

Officers have been travelling the country talking to people they think were around Lambert at the time.

Lambert’s unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, was praised by the highest ranks in the Met. When he was undercover, and later when he ran the SDS, Lambert was a hero to other spycops. He had Clarke and Shepherd sent down, but now they are appealing their convictions.

For the Met, defending their targeting of the other two, to be investigating Lambert at the same time is a conflict of interest – if he is to blame then the convictions of the other two must be overturned.

To send police officers to investigate other officers is ludicrously biased. They are marking their friend’s homework. Anything incriminating Lambert may be twisted or suppressed to help shore up the crumbling case against Clarke and Shepherd.

WE CAN’T TRUST THE LIARS

We got the public inquiry, flawed and biased towards the police as even that is, because we didn’t settle for the various self-investigations by police and their satellite bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.

Our distrust has been vindicated by the buckets of whitewash delivered by these projects. The Met’s dedicated and overpriced investigation into spycops, Operation Herne, made claim after claim that was discredited as soon as it was uttered.

They originally said there was only evidence of one officer stealing a dead child’s identity; now we know half the officers did it and it was mandatory for decades. They released a report saying there was no evidence of spying on Stephen Lawrence’s family on the same day that Mark Ellison QC’s report was published which showed there was.

After more than seven years of victims giving the appalling detail of the deceit and abuse they’ve suffered, and the harsh, enduring personal damage that it has caused, it takes some gall for Met officers to expect to be respectfully taken as independent arbiters.

They have as little regard for the welfare of the victims as the officers who did the spying. One of those visited told us:

‘The first time was seven months ago a man and a woman came round, the second time was two men about three or four months ago.

‘They were trying to get me to say if I knew anyone who was active in that era or did I know anyone, almost did I do anything myself in that respect. They wanted me to make a statement about it, but of course I didn’t. I was active in the 80s and I was convicted of things. I knew a lot of people who were around at the time through SLAM and through London Greenpeace.

‘Then they gave my number and details to this other one, Operation Herne. Both times they came round my house uninvited, harassing me, trying to get me to make some statement, which I refused. The second ones said they were doing an investigation into undercover police officers, which I said was a joke, because how can police officers investigate themselves?

‘I said if I got any more harassment from them I might take legal action against them, either individually or collectively. I said I wasn’t happy with people just turning up on my doorstep, I found it very disturbing.

‘They’re the lowest of the low, these people. It makes me feel ill to think I was in touch with one of them.’

Brandon Spivey was visited out of the blue, in a place that he doesn’t often visit, which he found unsettling in itself. Once faced with the officers, he let them know what he thought of them.

That fact they had travelled 200 miles from London made it clear this was an irregular situation, more about intimidation.

‘The coppers must have known I was going to be there, which was a bit of a shock. It wasn’t my regular address. I spend a lot of time out of the country. I flew in Sunday night, I saw my mum Monday morning and went for a drive with her, and that’s where the coppers had come to ‘doorstep me’. There was no prior warning at all.

‘It was plain clothes officers, the two who’d been visiting everybody else, apparently. They were nervous. I fronted them out, asking them both their names and to see their identification, which I wrote down in front of them . I made them stand in my mum’s shop, so there’s about half a dozen people on my side looking at them. They said “do you want to speak of this outside?” I said if you want, so we stood outside in the street.

‘They only presented me with the letter when we were stood outside. They made no attempt to explain anything, no “I’m sorry this might be a bit of a shock but…”. It was plain and simple, really quite hostile, them trying to be intimidating. The letter they gave me said it was Operation Sparkler.

‘They said “we want to ask you about something that happened thirty years ago. Do you know anything about incendiary devices at Debenham’s?” I said yeah, I know all about it.

‘They said “can you give us some names?” I said yes, I’ll give you some names; John Dines and Bob Lambert.

‘I said, “I know why you’re here, you know why you’re here, now do me a favour and fuck off”. The two of them walked off in opposite directions, they were so flustered and made no attempt to even reply to my very clear attitude towards them and their bogus visit.’

Others have had advance warning, even if they didn’t know why, as another person told us.

‘They wrote to me in May at my current home address, a letter from Operation Sparkler/Nitrogen saying they believed I might have information about the ALF and people involved in the 1987 Debenham’s attacks, that could help them identify other perpetrators.

‘I was completely mystified. I’ve had no contact with the ALF or animal rights movements at all. I was involved in anarchist circles from 1979 to 1986, and I knew Dave Morris and people through London Workers’ Group. But by 1987 I was politically inactive. Probably the last time I was arrested was at Wapping [strike Jan 1986-Feb 1987], I was cautioned – it wasn’t even a formal caution, they just told me to bugger off.

‘I called them and said I have no idea why you think I might be able to help you, I don’t know anything about it. They said they would like to talk to me anyway and asked where I would like to meet. I said Bethnal Green police station. They said “I don’t want to talk to you in a police station, can’t we have a coffee somewhere?” I wasn’t having that.

‘I googled the Debenham’s attacks, followed my nose to the Undercover Policing Inquiry and, having seen a list of core participants and who was representing them, phoned Mike Schwarz at Bindmans for advice. He said “that’s a coincidence because I was just about to ring you”.

‘Weirdly, he couldn’t tell me why, because it was in connection with a document that he was not able to share – or even describe – because of a confidentiality commitment. However, the inference is that my name is on some kind of list.

‘My hunch is that somewhere along the line some lazy underemployed police spy decided to invent a bunch of shit and plucked my name out of an old spycop file, to fill in a gap in their story.’

It seems to be common for political police to think every group is as hierarchical as the police. If they can’t see a group’s command structure with officers, platoon leaders, quartermasters and whatnot then they presume it must be hidden. Then they start superimposing it on unstructured organisations or groups of people who are just friends.

Undercover officer Mark Kennedy took a key role in Climate Camp and was in the extended two-day meetings every month with details worked out by protracted consensus decision making processes, yet still his bosses gave him a shortlist of imagined commanders to keep tabs on.

LYING ABOUT US, LYING ABOUT THEMSELVES

It raises questions about who has been spied on, and what incorrect information is till on our files. It also has wider implications. The spycops’ files about our activities and any supposed danger we pose is being used to decide whether it’s safe to release the names of those same officers who spied on us.

Helen Steel, who was spied on by Lambert and deceived into a two-year relationship by John Dines, told a preliminary hearing of the public inquiry in November 2017 that not only were her files inaccurate – listing her as involved in campaigns she left twenty years ago- but nothing the spycops say can be taken at face value:

‘I think it is important that you know that from my perspective and the perspective of many of the women, we have seen the lies that these undercover officers are capable of, and just how convincing they are. They are professional liars. And I think that it is really important to bear that in mind when taking into account statements that they may make to you in letters or things that they may say to psychiatrists.’

Alison, who was deceived into a relationship by Mark Jenner, has described how officers from the Met’s Department of Professional Standards met up with her and asked for personal photos and home videos, yet wouldn’t even admit that Jenner was a police officer.

Even now, five years since Jenner’s cover name, real name, photo and profile were made public, and two years since they apologised to Alison, there has still been no official confirmation that he was a police officer.

That is not impartial. It is protecting one side whilst exposing the other. It is also failing to see this as a perpetrator/victim situation. The Operation Sparkler/Nitrogen doorsteppings are more of the same.

The swathe of earlier reports are proof, if it were needed, that police self-investigations must not be trusted. Their persistence and intrusion shows that they do not acknowledge their wrongdoing, nor respect the citizens they abused.

COPS is one of several groups who will be publishing a joint statement warning of these visits, advising those affected not to interact with these agents of our abusers.

Sir John Mitting

The Chair of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, Sir John Mitting, has announced another preliminary hearing of the inquiry.

It will be concerned with:

The anonymity applications by five former members of the Special Demonstration Squad whose real and cover names the Inquiry is minded to withhold from the public;

The Inquiry’s consultation on a proposal to change the process of applying for and determining anonymity applications;

Submissions relating to images of undercover police officers.

The hearing will take place on Monday 5 February 2018 at Court 4 of the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL.

Join us outside New Scotland Yard from 8am for Domestic Extremist Awareness Day, from where we will take a short walk at 9am to the Royal Courts of Justice for the demonstration ahead of the hearing at 10.