Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Authorities Accused of Inciting Illegal Protest

Posted by samzenpus on from the stirring-the-pot dept.

jarran writes "Questions are being asked about the tactics being employed by UK authorities to monitor and control protest groups. Schnews reports on evidence that government IP addresses are posting messages to sites like indymedia, attempting to provoke activists into taking illegal direct action. Evidence has emerged recently that the police consider sex to be a legitimate tool for extracting information from targets, and senior police have been accused of lying to parliament about the deployment of undercover agents at protests."

58 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, Sex with Activists? by TinBromide · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sign me up! I mean, I'm an activist with information relevant to the UK Police's Interests! Really!... Just don't send the guy in the article my way, he's really creepy...

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    1. Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yea, we lock you up with Bubba here, and he'll be having sex with you until you're ready to reveal all the information.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the American way!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that if you read TFAs, the police were using sex to infiltrate "anti-racist groups". Oh the humanity!

      And as to trying to provoke illegal behaviour, everybody knows (or should know) that the Met (London Metropolitan Police Force) do this. A reporter from the Guardian a few years back actually caught a policeman undercover showing some protestors how to unhook the police barriers and trying to get others to charge the police. And a Member of Parliament last year states that he saw two undercover police officers trying to lead people into throwing bottles at the police link. These are just the ones that are in the mainstream news. You have to ask yourself how it is that in a protest of hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes over a million, where over the course of an entire day there are perhaps three or four notable incidents of vandalism, it is that a few press photographers are always in the right place and time to grab the pictures of a few balaclaved men kicking in the windows of a McDonalds or somesuch. The intelligence services in the UK even infiltrated the Green Party. Note to Americans, the Green Parties in Europe are not the equivalent of those in the US. The UK Greens have an MP elected and do reasonably well at the council level, and in Germany and others, they're respectable groups. But in the UK, legitimate parties are fair game for undercover infiltration / subversion.

      If you want to see some despicable behaviour, witness the police dragging a disabled man out of his wheel chair at a recent protest. Really - it's worth watching the BBC interview with the victim. Note the police claim that he was rolling toward them threateningly. The guy can't even move his wheels on his own.

      But that people in the UK have been paid to lie their way into sex with unsuspecting people, usually pretty young people at that, seems there's nothing the UK authorities wont sink to.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    4. Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      What things seem like to you is no reflection on what's actually happening, unless you respect others, and remember that they hold their beliefs as strongly as you hold yours.

      I'm not convinced. I think most people who are making a big fuss about chickens being eaten are doing it mostly to feel superior. Which is why they do stupid pointless protests rather than convincing us or leaving us alone.

      No, I can't respect that on any level. I can't respect their protests either. I can't respect their hypocrisy, killing animals when it's convenient. I can't respect arguing against animal testing for medicines, but still taking the fruits of that research to save their own lives.

  2. It should make stuff legal... by rastilin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a new rule. If the police tell you to do it, whatever you were told to do is now legal. That will rapidly put a stop to this kind of underhanded stuff. Also, weren't there all these laws in European countries regarding lying about your identity when you're sleeping around; or does that also just not apply when the police do it?

    --
    How do you kill that which has no life?
    1. Re:It should make stuff legal... by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the police officer that made the post is now part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. No need to even come up with new laws to properly convict these idiot police.

    2. Re:It should make stuff legal... by RsG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nah, that just exposes all new loopholes.

      A better option is this: If a cop instructs or incites illegal action, that officer is potentially an accomplice/co-conspirator and the department they work for is liable. Note "instructs/incites" would only count when the officer was A) acting in his or her professional capacity, since otherwise they're just another civilian breaking the law on their own time and B) actually started something instead of going along with other criminal elements as part of their cover. This would mean that the victims of riots instigated by undercover cops would be able to sue the department.

      So Officer Bob working for the EXPD posing undercover as an anarchist throws the first stone during a protest, which then sparks a riot. Under these changed rules, the shopkeeper whose window was smashed or the insurance company of the car that was set on fire has a surefire lawsuit against the EXPD, who of course wise up and tell all of Officer Bob's coworkers to never, ever pull this kind of crap again. Ol' Bob himself is, of course, given his pink slip, and might face charges if the local prosecutor has the stones.

      Plus, added bonus, the actual victims of the riot get compensation - and by "actual victims" I mean the folks who caught in the crossfire, whose homes, neighbourhoods or places of business were turned into a warzone by overzealous cops and the violent assholes who enjoy rioting.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Rape by deception" laws, i.e. if you misrepresent yourself to get sex, you've committed a crime, would put every single liar looking to get laid on the wrong side of the law. While that isn't necessarily a bad idea, I happen to disagree with any law that makes most of the population into instant criminals, especially if it's only prosecuted selectively.

    4. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't help anyway, it's .gov IP addresses involved, not police force addresses. The police can access the network in question, but they can't proxy through it (and would be stupid to do so when public proxies are available).

      The police are government funded, but otherwise independent - at least in theory. The idea is similar to the separation of the executive and judicial branches in the US - if the police were functionally a part of the government, they would have their hands tied trying to investigate breaches of law involving government officials, and would be in a position where .gov could force them to reveal information on investigations that would compromise those same investigations.

      Obviously there are problems in that structure, but any policing structure is inherently a compromise.

      Worth remembering that governments (and police) are made up of people, and sometimes the views of those people will run contrary to the organisation. The posts could be from an agent provocateur, but could just as easily be from a temp or secretary who actually holds those views, and didn't realise a posts source could be tracked. Slashdot of all places should know how clueless general internet users can be - that they might work in a government post doesn't automatically negate that.

    5. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure

            Dude you are just begging for Godwin's law to be invoked for this comment.

            This "excuse" didn't work at the Nuremberg trials. Why should it work today?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:It should make stuff legal... by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because its 60 years later?

    7. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Firehed · · Score: 2

      I don't think excuses ripen with age.

      Although with what old people get away with, I could be very wrong.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama isnt your direct superior, if he wanted to order you to kill someone, you would have to be in the armed forces, or he would have to pass some kind of law. If Obama comes to your door and says 'do X', and you don't, you dont get in trouble. If the a policeman does the same, you get to spend the night in jail for not complying.

      I agree with your 'good reason to trust' argument though, and killing someone obviously doesnt work in this situation, but i bet there are plenty of "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situations

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    9. Re:It should make stuff legal... by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          The way it usually works is this. The undercover officer isn't inciting the action, they are simply playing the part of someone friendly to such actions. Anything they do is by their own free will, and he was monitoring, and doing what it took to maintain his cover. If the organizers ordered him, for example, to acquire explosives, to maintain his cover he would need to acquire the requested materials. If he was unaware of the purpose for the materials, it would be impossible to introduce decoy materials. For example, if they were to use a portion to test or practice with, the decoy would be exposed prior to the commission of the major crime. In that, the operative would be considered useless and would likely be removed from the group.

          That's not to say I agree with it. A government operative who facilitates a group to do something they would otherwise be unable to do is simply exposing a non-threat, and prosecuting people for something that they would have not managed to do on their own.

          There have been recent cases here in the US, where "potential terrorists" were identified, and organized by undercover FBI agent(s). On their own, they would have just been a bunch of idiots talking shit and unable to form a viable plan on their own. With the organization and supplies provided by the FBI (or other government agencies), they created the viable threat, and then were able to prosecute that threat.

          I'm surprised how dumb potential threats are. They are unable to figure out how to make explosives, or carry on a tactical threat. It's good that those who want to commit such crimes are too dumb to do it on their own.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    10. Re:It should make stuff legal... by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technically, that may be true, but the police (and, for that matter, most people employed in the public sector) in the UK have developed a remarkable way of avoiding criminal liability for these things.

      It works something like this: If one person does something illegal, that will be prosecuted within the law. OK?

      If a whole bunch of people are involved in something illegal as part of their job, and those people are employed in the public sector, that is never a crime. It is - at most - a "concern" which may result in an investigation, a report, and maybe even a full-blown inquiry. At no point will any individual (or, for that matter, group of individuals) be singled out for punishment. The most they can expect is some harsh criticism in the resulting report, but that criticism will in no way harm their career.

    11. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the Nuremberg trials weren't convened by the same government that sanctioned the behaviour.

      If the police (as representatives of the UK government) tell someone to do something illegal, and they do it, then it seems reasonable that the police (as representatives of the UK government) shouldn't be able to arrest them, and the courts (as representatives of the UK government) shouldn't allow them to be convicted. Any other courts can do what they like, provided it's within their jurisdiction.

      Of course, the idea wouldn't work anyway because all it means is that the police wouldn't leave a paper trail.

    12. Re:It should make stuff legal... by jimicus · · Score: 2

      Thing is, in the scenario you describe it is vanishingly unlikely that Officer Bob will ever be caught in the first place.

      Firstly, he'll be wearing a balaclava and nondescript clothes which he'll dispose of immediately after he gets home.

      Secondly, anything which might provide direct evidence of Bob throwing the first stone (eg. CCTV) will mysteriously "not be working" on the day of the riot. (This doesn't work so well now that virtually everyone's got a phone that can record video).

      Thirdly, it's a riot FFS. It's never going to be particularly clear what the exact sequence of events was, which means it's whatever those in power say it is.

      Fourthly, note that Bob was acting in a professional capacity. He may have gone a little too far, but he was instructed to be there by his superiors. While they could hang him out to dry, that could easily backfire - why did they put him in that position in the first place? Far easier (and rather safer) to close ranks against any investigation. In fact, I'd argue that this is more likely in the States because of the number of officials you guys elect. Our police chiefs aren't elected.

    13. Re:It should make stuff legal... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      This "excuse" didn't work at the Nuremberg trials. Why should it work today?

      Because the referenced acts are likely not deadly or even harmful to people. Most protesters don't try to harm people, just property. There are only a few that like to harm people, and they are scattered in the more violent groups, and the groups referenced here aren't violent, just anti-government.

      Following an order to kill someone should land both the person giving the order in jail as well as the actor (especially if the person giving the order was a cop). But a cop suggesting or in any way agreeing to, say, burn down a factory should land the cop in jail and the department on the hook for the bill and the actor (provided they acted in good faith to not harm anyone) should be given a medal and a large check for having to deal with corrupt cops.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    14. Re:It should make stuff legal... by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the police tell you to do something, it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure relative to you. That doesn't mean that the officer wouldn't go to jail for giving the order.

      In a similar fashion, if a police captain orders an officer to kill someone illegally, then the captain should go to jail, not the officer (unless the officer should have had reason to reject the order).

      My country had a mandatory military service, so I've been a soldier for some time. As soldiers, we were legally obliged to deny direct orders if they were unlawful. So even if we were ordered by military authority, we'd go in jail for shooting some random civilian (the one who gave the order would probably be jailed, too). And that is a GOOD thing, because it requires the soldiers to keep thinking about their own actions. And it's the same for civilians. If you do something illegal, you are responsible for that action. If somebody else told you to do so, he may be held responsible too, but that does not change the fact that you are responsible for your own actions.

    15. Re:It should make stuff legal... by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Technically, that may be true, but the police (and, for that matter, most people employed in the public sector) in the UK have developed a remarkable way of avoiding criminal liability for these things.

      Agreed.

      But while this does indicate that the law should be changed, I think the suggestion presented would be a very wrong change and possibly even a turn for the worse. Certainly encouraging criminal behaviour should be a crime. I have no problem with a police officer going along with preparation for a crime for sufficient time as to acquire evidence to both prevent the crime and charge those responsible for conspiracy to commit a crime. I'm sure there are more complex situations (for example committing a minor crime in the process of planning a major crime, or just enabling the crime) that a simple rule like this couldn't posibly cover.

    16. Re:It should make stuff legal... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      "Actually, the police officer that made the post is now part of a conspiracy to commit a crime."

      No, he's a spy. He is mearly inciting the group he is spying on, probably in an attempt to test their level of communication, organization and willingness to break the law.

      The real world is not black and white, the problem with these kind of activities is where to draw the line. Clearly such tatics were central to breaking up the IRA but just as clearly they've lost the plot when they start using them against political groups with a track record for peacefully protest.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:It should make stuff legal... by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the police tell you to do something, it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure relative to you.

      This is only true insomuch as you know the person is the police at the time of the order and that they were working within their official capacity.

      Everyone knows there are things the cops can't make you do. For instance, they can't pull you over for speeding and make you rape the next person that passes by. That's just obviously ludicrous. But here, we are expected to believe that someone entered a public forum as a disguised person and stirred the emotions in an attempt to promote illicit behavior.

      This being the internet as the public forum, but in almost any other situation like a real live in person protest or when speaking to a crowd in the town square, if you did the same, you would be up on charges of inciting a riot (at least in the US) or the equivalent. You could possibly get conspiracy charges. These officers should be held accountable to the same standards as anyone else in that situation, and if it's found that it was ordered by their superiors, then they should face it too.

      Notice how I didn't say instead? I'll get to why in a moment.

      In a similar fashion, if a police captain orders an officer to kill someone illegally, then the captain should go to jail, not the officer (unless the officer should have had reason to reject the order).

      No, it should be the officer_and_the Captain. You see, in free societies, you are typically responsible for your own actions no matter who made you do it. There are a couple of defenses surrounding necessity but for the most part, if you do something illegal, you could be charged with that crime unless some other rule of law preempts it (self defense, the defense of another life and so on are typically enough to get all charged dropped and they are a form of necessity).

      Anyways, Lets say I'm next in line to be captain, if I wasn't responsible for my own actions, then I could just kill someone and say the captain told me to. Get a fellow officer to back me up by promising a promotion and raise and it's the word of two police officers who are apparently spilling their guts against his commander who is denying anything except for someone was killed. But if I'm still responsible for my own actions, then I can save a life by not killing the guy in the first place because I don't want to sit in the same prisons I put people in.

      This is why someone who incited illegal behavior, be it a riot, any action that causes the death of someone or whatever, should not be the sole carrier of the punishment. The act, whatever it was, could only succeed if people are willing to participate and they will be a lot more willing to participate if what amounts to an "he made me do it, go after him instead" defense is set into law. Keep all parties responsible to their own actions. And take the police of any public authority that encourages, enables, promote, incites, or does anything outside of normal every day duties to aid or encourage illegal behavior, and make it a felony or worse crime.

      There is no need for the people who are supposed to be making us safe, to attempt to make us unsafe in their line of work. They will argue that it's necessary to see who the trouble makers are and get them under control early before there is trouble. In the states, we call this behavior entrapment and it pretty much invalidates the arrests as well as leaves openings for civil suits.

    18. Re:It should make stuff legal... by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you deal with that when your bosses at the top level ship you to somewhere like Afghanistan or Iraq where there's virtually no visible difference between soldiers and civilians?

    19. Re:It should make stuff legal... by ultranova · · Score: 2

      This "excuse" didn't work at the Nuremberg trials. Why should it work today?

      It didn't work at the Nuremberg trials because that judged the head Nazis, those who were the authority figures. The average concentration camp guard - you know, the people who actually dragged other people into gas chambers - got away with it precisely because they were simply following orders.

      Not that that really matters. Nuremberg trials are ancient history, and genocides since then have mostly gone completely unpunished. The "normal" course of things is not that your excuses don't work, it's that you don't need excuses.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:It should make stuff legal... by HBI · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not a soldier either, though I play one on TV. I've been under fire in Iraq. Soldiers, in practice, can't refuse orders. It's not a conspiracy: it's just that no one gives an order that is prima facie illegal. Therefore, if the soldier perceives it as such, there will be disciplinary action and it's unlikely that the situation will be unwound for 2-5 years. During which time, said soldier probably spent some serious military prison time as well as every waking moment defending against charges. Soldiers know this; they are unwilling to disobey orders for this reason.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    21. Re:It should make stuff legal... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it doesn't seem reasonable. It would give the police a tool that's way too powerful, and the potential for abuse is horrifying. If you can't think of situations where the civilians involved are too ashamed or frightened to mention what happened to anyone, or situations where the copper says "you do this to him, or I'll have him do it to you", you need a red pill.
      In a way, it would be like turning the police into Abu Graib prison guards, and all the rest of us into prisoners.

      The coppers don't need more ways to abuse their authority than they already have.

    22. Re:It should make stuff legal... by dwandy · · Score: 2

      has a surefire lawsuit against the EXPD

      And who pays the cost of litigation and the damages awarded?
      The tax payer. The "EXPD" has no money except that which is collected as taxes/fines and then allocated in the budget for law enforcement.
      Why should I pay for the individual police officer's actions?
      Part of the problem really is that the officer hides behind the protection of force and we foolish taxpayers shuffle some money from public to private interests.
      Let's make those who committed these acts personally responsible for their actions. If a Top Cop gave orders for this sort of activity then include them as well, but I'm so tired of seeing police budgets used to pay for legal actions. Personal responsibility just might convince some of these people to behave themselves in accordance with their office.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    23. Re:It should make stuff legal... by dwandy · · Score: 2

      especially if it's only prosecuted selectively

      I think demonstrating selective enforcement should be grounds to have your case dismissed.
      Either we are enforcing a law, or we're not.
      I also think all laws should sunset, requiring that they be reviewed and renewed.
      This has the net effect that old laws go off the books, we have a smaller set of laws to deal with both from an enforcement and public-knowing-the-law standpoint, and we get to ensure that as our views change over time we are focusing on the issues of the day and we get all this without the overhead of having to pass legislation to remove laws from the books.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    24. Re:It should make stuff legal... by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      It's still illegal (conspiracy) for the officer to order you to do the illegal act. The problem arises with all of the laws we have in modern society. Sure, you can know that doing something wrong when requested is probably illegal, but what if it's a law like "don't step on the grass"? Say an officer is directing pedestrian traffic after an event. He tells people to walk across some grass, and into a cage where he tells them all they're under arrest for walking on the grass... Even when an officer is not identified as an authority, it's still conspiracy for him to suggest an illegal act, and unless people carry a personal lawyer with them everywhere, it would be impossible to avoid entrapment.

    25. Re:It should make stuff legal... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2

      Disclaimer: This describes the situation in Germany, and may not translate to other armies.

      Sadly, I think that disclaimer is substantially more significant than you realise.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  3. the word you're looking for is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Agent provocateur

    1. Re:the word you're looking for is by ocdscouter · · Score: 2

      Agent provocateur

      Not to be confused with the Enfant Provocateur, who bears some similarity, but who generally lacks an overarching goal or purpose.

  4. All according to the guiding principles of Ingsoc. by arcsimm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!

  5. Re:A bit slanted by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    If its about that guy who was embedded in UK environmental organisations then I don't think he had to be having sex to be involved. Either that or I never got invited to the right demonstrations.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  6. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So it's part of their job to have sex? as in, they are getting paid to have sex? I wish there was a name for that...

    1. Re:so... by sjames · · Score: 2

      It's just a prostitute hired by a 3rd party to the sex act. You've never heard of getting someone a hooker for their birthday?

      Either way, it's someone engaging in sex acts because they were paid to do it.

    2. Re:so... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Porn is generally in another category legally because BOTH parties are paid, neither solicits the other, and it's purpose is "artistic expression".

      Many people don't really consider either to be particularly moral and wouldn't want law enforcement to be an active participant. I have to wonder what the police would do if one of their beat cops moonlighted as a porn star?

      The police are honestly in a worse moral and ethical position than porn actors or prostitutes since they are also toying with others emotionally and sexually under false pretenses as well as performing sex for hire.

  7. Old old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fact is, the police have been at this game since Victorian times,

    My father, being an old communist, used to tell tales of the 'strange' characters that tried to infiltrate the local party, forgetting that this is a small town and that your history, and that of your family, were easily found out, and, if not, you were suspect.

    Best laugh, one character turned down by the party on the grounds of 'known police informer', the next week joined the SNP, worked his way right in there as well, pity no-one from the SNP asked any of his neighbours about him and his background, you know, pertinant things like him being a member of the Orange order and a unionist...

    Know for a fact, Dundee Uni vegetarian society in the mid '80s was infiltrated by the plods, and if I was a member of any animal rights group in the UK I'd want to do a deep background check on some of my fellow members...

    A final parting note, at a Reading festival, was approached by a rather suspect character wanting to know if I had any acid for sale, next day, same character wanted to know if I wanted to buy any drugs..now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that as the number of arrests for possession on day 1 were too low this was a.plod selling stuff so that a.n.other.plod could then arrest the poor sap who bought it, but...

    Being fair to the plods, this infiltration mularkey works both ways..

    1. Re:Old old news... by syousef · · Score: 2

      You can infiltrate but unless you can reach the level that can held accountable for the actions being acceptable you are only frying small fish. You need to catch out the whales and fry their asses.

      I don't think vegetarians would be terribly interested in fried whale ass.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Old old news... by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, a lot of organiations don't have a problem with police infiltrators. Their politics may be extreme but many of them stay well within the law. A police informant has a lot more time to spend helping with the campaigning because he doesn't have the inconvenience of needing to find a job to supprt himself. They have a full-timer paid for by the police.

  8. Cost by zmollusc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The irksome part about the police using agents provocateur is that the police are always complaining that they have insufficient funds to police the streets. If the police can spare a man to infiltrate a bunch of hippies for a number of years, how many undercover police are there in all the more disruptive groups? The figure of £250,000 a year was mentioned as the cost of running one agent, which is infuriating to anyone who has been told that the police have insufficient resources to visit their house when it has been burgled.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    1. Re:Cost by abigsmurf · · Score: 2

      What's the cost of organising a team of 5-10 officers for the same amount of time? How much less likely is the team without an agent to get a successful prosecution? Budgeting is rarely so black and white.

      As much as a burglary is a big deal to victims, their property and contents are probably insured and there's no risk to life. The Stop Huntingdon animal Cruelty group, sent families death threats, sent fake bombs, handed around leaflets saying their victims were pedophiles, invaded their workplaces.

  9. Re:Subjects by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    They are British Subjects. They don't have inalienable Rights. Their privileges are whatever the government thinks they should be.

    LOL. I suppose it's totally different where you live because a few hundred years ago some guys in wigs signed a piece of paper?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. It's been done (and exposed) in Canada recently by seyyah · · Score: 4, Informative

    See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

  11. Not just the police by Epeeist · · Score: 2

    In at least one of the demonstrations I have attended I have seen journalists pay people to incite a disturbance. This was an anti-Nazi league demonstration with money been given to a set of skinheads to break it up.

  12. Re:A bit slanted by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you not agree that the women involved are allowed to feel lied to and betrayed?

    sure, but if lying to get laid is a crime, you might as well lock up every male on the planet..

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  13. Re:So what? Why should we care? by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    Freedom of speech means that you have to accept all groups' peaceful demonstration - be it the KKK, Nazis, Environmental groups and the Hugging-People-Randomly-Association.

    If being a nazi was illegal (which it is in some countries) - you could just go and arrest them - you wouldn't need a riot.

  14. historical ref: camden28 by jdogalt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those of you unfamiliar with the 'Camden 28', a good example of a US Agent Provocateur can be found in this story-

    camden28.org (film shown on PBS independent lens from time to time)

    "
    In the early-morning hours of Sunday, August 22, 1971, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Attorney General John Mitchell announced that FBI agents had arrested 20 antiwar activists in and near a draft board office in Camden, New Jersey. ...

    They also asked the jury to acquit on the grounds that the raid would not have taken place without the help of a self-admitted FBI informer and provocateur. The defendants emphasized that they had given up their plan, for lack of a practical means, until the informer-provocateur had resurrected it and provided them with the encouragement and tools to carry it out.
    "

  15. Death or Unga-bunga! by Chas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two explorers stumble upon a primitive tribe and somehow manage to offend them.

    They're taken before the chief and he gives them the choice of death or "unga-bunga".

    The first chooses unga-bunga. He is promptly raped by all the men in the tribe.

    When given his choice, the second chooses death.

    The chief smiles and pronounces sentence "Death by unga-bunga!"

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  16. Re:A bit slanted by Tom · · Score: 2

    It isn't the demonstrations. And I don't even think it is specific to the themes.

    The thing is that we humans still think in tribal structures. When people bond together strongly over something, they quickly split the world into "us" and "them". That is true of families, religions, political views, even music styles and hobbies. Almost all of us search for partners within those groups that we feel a part of. We are looking for someone who is sufficiently like us. When some idea dominates your live, those who follow the same idea become the primary group you look for partnership, both in the sense of friends and the sense of sex, love, etc. When the group is small, you will find this promiscuity within it, no matter what the topic that binds it together. That is because everyone knows everyone else, so nobody is really strangers with each other, which lowers the barriers - because bonds, familiarity and, most importantly, trust already exist. Which is why mostly women are protesting this very strongly, as trust is very important for most women before they become intimate with someone else.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  17. Bunch of sexists by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article says that both male and female officers engaged in the practice, but public outcry is only about those poor women who were taken advantage of. What about the men? It's ok to take advantage of them? Their feelings don't get hurt?

    1. Re:Bunch of sexists by BetterSense · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Men don't have feelings, and women are always victims. Men are always perpetrators and aggressors and have no emotions, no emotional needs, and of course cannot be harmed emotionally. If you were properly socialized you would have absorbed this dogma by now.

      Examples:

      Woman sees man undressed in his own home: man gets arrested for indecent exposure (woman is the victim)
      Man sees woman undressed in her own home: man gets arrested for voyeurism (woman is the victim)
      Woman (of age) has sex with her father: man gets arrested for incest (woman is the victim)
      Man emotionally baits woman by appealing to her basic emotional needs then uses that emotional leverage to get money:Woman is being exploited
      Woman emotionally baits man by appealing to his basic emotional needs then uses that emotional leverage to get money:Woman is being exploited
      Female baby has genital parts removed by parents for cosmetic/tradition/superstition reasons: Illegal, woman is considered mutilated and worthy of sympathy (victim)
      Male baby has genital parts removed by parents for cosmetic/tradition/superstition reasons: Legal and encouraged, he should be like it, or at least live with it, and certainly not insinuate he has been harmed in any way.

      I suggest you work on understanding this type of 'equality', and learn to absorb it and perpetuate it. Arguing for the rights of men or for their emotional needs to be protected or for them to have equal social protections and legal standings is not something that will make you popular in our society. Men are not encouraged to think freely or to question this system of equality.

  18. Lousy socialists... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's just like we've been warning them for years: socialism leads to dependence on the government so severe that even anti-government protestors sit around on their asses waiting for an agent provocateur to provide them with a suitably illegal protest plan. Pathetic.

    Here in the good old land of yankee ingenuity, we just outlaw whatever internal sedition our plucky can-do citizens manage on their own, and then beat the shit out of it. If the supply proves insufficient, we ensure full employment for Our Heroes by surveilling those terrifying pacifist quakers(they might put the "fist" in "pacificist" at any moment, you can't be too careful) and the occasional pothead(Morally depraved, and responsible for 85% of Cheeto shoplifting incidents...).

  19. Re:freedom in the UK by Xest · · Score: 2

    Well fear not, because the UK is actually becoming more free nowadays. Things were bad throughout the last 10 - 20 years under the Labour government and got progressively worse, but since the coalition government came to power last year, whilst things are far far from perfect still, civil liberties are at least being improved more than they're being trodden on now which is something. This particular case is really a follow on from the Labour years that the government seemingly knew little about.

    If you're worried about the effects of other countries laws spreading throughout Europe I'd suggest you be far more concerned with Italy's censorship laws and France's extremely pro-media industry laws as these look much more likely to spread across the EU.

  20. Re:Subjects by Raemond · · Score: 2

    Unless they were born in India before partition or Ireland before 1949, they're not 'subjects': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

  21. Re:freedom in the UK by Xest · · Score: 2

    "I think you've got a rose tinted view of the current government."

    No, it's just realistic based on current actual changes.

    "For an example consider that they are now actively looking into by default supplying everyone with a censored internet connection 'suitable for children', and you would have to register with your ISP to get the 'adult' internet."

    Which demonstrates my viewpoint exactly. You see, what you've mentioned here is actually wrong. What was proposed, and by only a couple of ministers I might add, was that people can choose to have their internet connection censored, and choose to opt out. If you choose not to have it censored when you sign up then it would be business as usual.

    There's nothing to suggest this is being seriously considered by the government as a whole, only that it's the pet project of a couple of MPs. The real test is when it comes to fruition and they vote on it in parliament- that's when we find out if it really had government support, but until then we simply do not know. I find it unlikely the Liberal Democrats would support such a move, of course they may prove me wrong, but that's the sort of test that such a scheme would have to pass and Clegg has already played a lot of his cards in the student debate, so it's unlikely he'd be able to pressure his MPs into supporting another unpopular move like this without risking an out and out rebellion.

    There are always lots of fear mongering reports that completely and utterly get wrong what is being done, or what certain MPs want to be done and I prefer to base my view on what is actually being done, and thus far, the coalition government's changes have been a net positive effect for civil liberties. This is not to say there haven't been dissapointments- I'm dissapointed they dropped their pledge for anonymity for males accused of rape until they've actually been found guilty if they are found guilty for example but all in, they've certainly not made things worse yet.

    It may be that this changes over time, and if it does my opinion will change with it, but right now based on what they have actually done, and are actually seriously doing (i.e. NIR destruction, the CCTV review etc.) things are certainly far more positive than negative. Compared to the sorts of things that are happening in the US, Australia and Europe I'd say the UK right now has one of the better governments when it comes to defending and improving civil liberties for the time being.

    You should bear in mind that you always get ministers with pet projects that are completely idiotic, but they don't always come even close to fruition. You can't really blame the whole government until a large proportion of it actually supports such stupid measures, and it's often made worse by the fact that what the minister has actually proposed even then isn't quite as bad as sites like Slashdot make it out to be (because they've got it completely wrong).

  22. Re:A bit slanted by fishexe · · Score: 2

    Well, I'm a male who has never lied to get laid, but maybe that explains why I rarely get laid.

    But what lies could you tell that would help? That you're rich? That you don't actually have a girlfriend?

    That an uninteresting girl is interesting. I know a LOT of guys that have used that one, to great success.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009