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."

11 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    4. 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.
  2. the word you're looking for is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Agent provocateur

  3. 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
  4. 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...

  5. 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..

  6. 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.
  7. 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!