UK Authorities Accused of Inciting Illegal Protest 371
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."
Wait, Sex with Activists? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (Score:5, Funny)
It's the American way!
Death or Unga-bunga! (Score:5, 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!"
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the pictured guy, you might not want to sleep with the activists.
Now the animal rights activists, PETA, they generally seem more attractive and concerned with hygiene. Plus I'd feel less bad about lying to get in bed with one of them. On average. I'm sure there are plenty of environmentalists who are doing it just to feel holier than thou, but it seems like -all- the animal rights activists are.
Re:Wait, Sex with Activists? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [guardian.co.uk]. 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 [youtube.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath. ... well, it may be a good idea to hold your breath. If you pass out, you may not be awake for the worst parts.
It should make stuff legal... (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?
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 fo
Re: (Score:3)
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 again
Re:It should make stuff legal... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 introduc
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What if, after Bob threw the stone, a man chucked a petrol bomb at an officer who was severely injured. He had the petrol bomb prepared, although he got caught up in the situation he still made the choice to use a potentially deadly weapon in the situation.
Getting caught up in the moment should only affect sentencing rather than if a crime was actually committed (these are the kinds of things suspended sentences are designed for after al
Re: (Score:2)
The petrol bomb situation is pretty cut and dried. The guy with the bomb had a petrol bomb, he doesn't get a free pass.
What about the situation where officer Bob manages to kick off a full-blown confrontation - ie. the police run in with shields and batons. Others react in what they perceive as self defence, protesters and officers alike are injured.
Who should face charges here?
Well, Bob, for a start. After that it becomes a lot less clear to me.
Entrapment in the UK (Score:2)
Entrapment laws are incredibly strong in the UK and police are trained extensively not to fall foul of them. They may throw that stone, but they'll make sure, if they throw it, they'll be the last person who does. He may be part of an angry mob at a protest but he won't be someone at the front clashing with the police, he'll be standing back amongst a crowd of people.
Undercover operations are time consuming, expensive and embarra
Re: (Score:3)
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 perso
Re:It should make stuff legal... (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think going to a rape by deception law like that would be a terrible idea and lead to all sorts of trivial and meritless cases clogging up the courts. For a start I'm sure there a lot of men who woke up with someone significantly less attractive than they thought they went to bed with...
On a less flippant note though, I fully support the right of the women involved here to be morally outraged, and for the police to be banned from this sort of behaviour in future.
Just because something is legal doesn't mak
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking the law is not a loophole. That the rest of the government is looking the other way when the police do it is a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP was just slightly misworded. 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
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:4, 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?
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think excuses ripen with age.
Although with what old people get away with, I could be very wrong.
Re: (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,
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 "n
Re: (Score:2)
At this jury trial, you'd have to convince a bunch of people that you had good reason to trust this "order." I'm guessing "because he said so" wouldn't cut it. Even if Obama himself showed up on my doorstep and asked me to kill someone, I would still ask "why?" first. Perhaps, there is a reason (or 2) I didn't join the military.
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:2)
You mean murder being illegal isn't enough reason to reject the order? I thought Police anywhere could only kill either in self defence or in direct defense of others - not just for implied dangers. They're not hitmen.
Re:It should make stuff legal... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI most modern armed services do exactly the same thing - it doesn't matter two hoots who gives the order, if it's illegal you are perfectly within your rights (indeed, you're obliged) to refuse to follow it.
I'm given to understand (though IANASoldier and never have been) that a significant amount of training time is spent explaining this quite clearly and also explaining what constitutes an illegal order.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:5, 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?
Re:It should make stuff legal... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
the word you're looking for is (Score:5, Informative)
Agent provocateur [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain its a lingerie shop [wikipedia.org]. We win!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Agent provocateur [wikipedia.org]
Not to be confused with the Enfant Provocateur [hutman.net], who bears some similarity, but who generally lacks an overarching goal or purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Because sometimes waiting for terrorist or activist groups to come up with their own illegal activities is just boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's half measure. They should just release a virus in Blackwater and be done with it.
All according to the guiding principles of Ingsoc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All hail the Emperor!
No offense (Score:2)
"senior police have been accused of lying to parliament about the deployment of undercover agents"
But, it does sound like he was doing his job well. How could possibly lying to politicians be an offense?
Re: (Score:2)
"senior police have been accused of lying to parliament about the deployment of undercover agents"
But, it does sound like he was doing his job well. How could possibly lying to politicians be an offense?
If you want to outright lie legally, you have to be a politician.
All the others are allowed to try "putting a spin" - the quickest way: present it as a positive. Like: "this demonstrates just how good the undercover agents were: not even their senior knew what were they doing. You think their targets had any chance?"
A bit slanted (Score:2, Insightful)
How addicted to the sinister police narrative do you hav
Re:A bit slanted (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It comes down to sex by deception.
Do you not agree that the women involved are allowed to feel lied to and betrayed?
And these are not big, international, espionage type things, these are police infiltrating environmentalist and animal rights groups. Legitimate citizen groups, convening, meeting and (for the largest part) engaging on totally legal protest. That they have people coming in, lying about who they are and what they do and then sleeping with people specifically to rat them out...
I don't know about
Re:A bit slanted (Score:4, 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..
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was a crime, i said it was morally repugnant and not an acceptable tactic for the police to use.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's usually considered unethical to trick someone into sex under false pretenses. It's a bit impractical to actually make that illegal in most cases. But one might still want agents of the government to avoid doing it as part of their official duties.
Re: (Score:2)
No there isn't, Assange is under no risk of getting extracted to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if they're trying to infiltrate an organization (and accompanying social milieu) where there's a lot of sex, why wouldn't having sex be a legitimate part of their task?
For the same reasons that, when they're trying to infiltrate an organization that deals in drugs, trafficking drugs isn't considered a legitimate part of their task. It's a legal nightmare waiting to happen.
so... (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...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite prostitution because the parties don't quite line up.
But at least when the undercover cop had to go back to headquarters for a meeting or something he could just tell the bad guys that he's going for a meeting with his pimp.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
If that were the legal definition, then all the people in porno films would be convicted of prostitution.
Re: (Score:3)
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 emotiona
Old old news... (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..
Vegetarians get that sometimes (Score:2)
Know for a fact, Dundee Uni vegetarian society in the mid '80s was infiltrated by the plods
Who cares if some vegetarians at some UK uni got diarrhea?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus sexual services! (" the police consider sex to be a legitimate tool for extracting information")
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall a documentary on the BBC a couple of years back that stated as fact the british miner's union was infiltrated by either the police or MI5, can't remember which, back in the '70s-'80s. So like you say this doesn't seem like much of a shocker to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Had this happen at a hacker get-together a couple years back. This somewhat older lady comes to the meeting and promptly starts asking about drugs, and using the computers on site to research psylocybin and the like. Stood out like a sore thumb that'd been dipped in pitch and naptha and set alight.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Agent provocateur? (Score:2)
Agent provocateur?
It's called democracy in action.
Cost (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more so for infiltrating a group, which at worst seems to have done some non-violent direct action. I do not really see this as a threat at all, more akin to civil disobedience.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It's been done (and exposed) in Canada recently (Score:5, Informative)
See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow [youtube.com]
Not just the police (Score:3)
historical ref: camden28 (Score:5, 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.
"
Hmm (Score:2)
This man should be promoted! (Score:2)
"The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It's amazing how women don't like you going to bed with someone else," said the officer...
"Captain Obvious" is clearly insufficient rank for this officer - for an insight of that magnitude, he should be at least a Colonel.
National Security of your job.... (Score:2)
When you are in fear of losing your police job, or other such government sponsored work....
Create a problem that doesn't otherwise exist and then be the solution.
Of the near 7 billion people on this planet its some fraction of 1% that is causing the rest of us all the world scale problems.
Though we already all know this, its how to stop them is the task.
Bunch of sexists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bunch of sexists (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Lousy socialists... (Score:4, Funny)
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...).
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you can see a major difference between a german nazi-resurgence group and an animal rights or environmentalist group, please?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's talking about freedom of speech?
We're talking about secret infiltration by the police, not restriction of freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's an offense against freedom of assembly and right to privacy. It can indirectly become an offense against free speech if the speech of the group is changed - if you made a group change its statements by threatening to bash in their heads if they didn't, it would obviously be an offense. Doing it by deception instead of violence doesn't change the outcome as far as free speech is concerned.
I'm surprised the British aren't rioting in the streets over these Stasi methods. Spying on your political op
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry I don't follow you. If you're trying to turn this into some sort of partisan debate I suggest you go fuck yourself.
If the groups were violent, fine, but I see no record of that in the articles from the UK on this particular scandal.
And if you seriously don't see the difference between protest for animal rights or environmental issues and a group that stands explicitly for racism and death? Well, ok, fine. Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC there was an episode of Get Smart were KAOS turns out to be run entirely by infiltrators from various organisations. Its such an old joke that you'd think police forces would take more care.
Re: (Score:2)
The government official's IP addresses could be hidden from end users, so only the sites admins could see them?
A great protest is the video exposure of UK Police not wearing ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRgmn-n5ls [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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 wo
Re: (Score:3)
"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