Tuesday, 25 June 2013

2462 Working under cover: matters of state and principle

The weekend of June 22nd to 24th marking the longest days of the year and summer in earnest has also been days of thunder, aggressive rain and cold winds. I am shortly to listen to the Home secretary come to the House of Commons to make a statement about an official police undercover operation to discredit the family on the racist murder of black young man Stephen Lawrence while he waited at a bus stop twenty years ago. I listened to the statement and the exchanges between Members of Parliament at 3.30 and which had been pre-empted by a statement from the Prime Minister both in advance of the two years in the making programme Dispatches televised on Channel Four last night.

The programme was divided into two parts both covering the activities of a special squad operated within Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police over the past couple of decades until disbanded and a new infiltration unit was created under Scotland Yard with new operational guidance.

It is an essential part of government in maintaining national security and stability to use undercover individuals who will join groups whose activities are of concern although whether this should be a purely policing judgement or require political oversight at government level is a moot point. One obviously has to avoid use for party political or personal prejudices although the same argument can be used against delegating to the police and in a democracy I tend to favour direct political oversight in the same way that the Foreign and Home Secretaries have to personally authorise secret phone taps and other forms of surveillance not considered as part of normal preventive policing.

As a former extremist in that in the early 1960s I was a member and supporter of groups taking direct action against the possession and use of weapons of mass destruction going to prison for six months rather than agree to stop what I was doing or pay fines, was kept under surveillance at the time. Given that I subsequently became the first and only local authority chief officer who went to prison before they were appointed although a small handful have been imprisoned after appointment monitoring I expected monitoring to continues. I thought nothing wrong in this then or still.

Indeed as part of my approach to being a non violent direct actionist, I advised the authorities of what I and others were doing such as visiting Scotland Yard for a meeting to outline the proposed route of the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War march at the end of the Aldermaston march at Trafalgar Square over a six week period to Holy Loch Scotland attended with George Clark the Chief Marshal of the Aldermaston march, or when in Scotland contacting the chief Police officers for each authority area to advise of the marches, two were planned on either side of the Clyde although only one took place, and also the Direct Action proposed at the Holy Loch Polaris Submarine base itself. I received a warning letter from the Chief Flagship 0fficer Scotland as a consequence. I could have been prosecuted for my involvement but I was not, in part I believe because I was always open, discouraged aggressive or critical behaviour towards the police for doing their job. I would apologise to any officers with whom I came into direct contact.

I also assumed that under cover officers and the media infiltrated the organisations as a matter of course and spent the subsequent fifty years speculating over which of the committee members, officers and activists were working for the authorities or media although in fairness to the Daily Mail they embedded a reporter with the march to Scotland openly and I know he became more than a neutral observer during the campaign.
I therefore have no quarrel with the previous existence of the unit or with its latest creation and regard those who engage in what at times will be very dangerous work on behalf of the state, me and my family included as a noble and courageous activity.

Having made this clear a share concerns over the two issues covered in the Dispatches programme and agree with the action proposed by the Home Secretary and supported to a great extent by the Shadow Secretary because what they said appeared proportionate and for once I do not think a public judge led inquiry is appropriate and indeed Hillsborough has shown that a different approach can prove more fruitful.

In the first part of the programme a former member of the unit disclosed that he was instructed as were other members of the unit to try and find anything which would discredit the family of a murdered black young man Stephen Lawrence and those associated with the family who were campaigning for the murderers to be caught and accusing the police of institutional racism. The family liaison officer attached to the family also had a double role, to advise and support the family but also to report any information about the family and those who visited the family which might show light on who they were and what they were up to.

It will surprise and shock some that in principle I cannot object to this being done qualified by the important caveat, depending on the particular circumstances. In London and Birmingham at the present time, killings and violent acts are taking place between gangs of criminals just as some young men associated with right wing views and football clubs often arrange fights between club supporters sometimes uniting to arrange fights between units supporting international playing teams. It is good sense for the authorities to place people in such groups for intelligence purpose and for training and this will include military special forces. Part of their function will be to provide information which may lead to crimes being solved, to individuals being discredited and a group being appropriately undermined. This will include spying and discrediting some who will be victims although in separate circumstances they will also be perpetrators. It is a fact that many who committee crimes of violence against children had crimes of violence committed against them when children.

Deciding who are the bad guys and the good is not always clear cut at the time. However this defence can be used to mask personal prejudices, isms, self protection cover ups and corruption. It is therefore right that the Coalition government and the official Opposition appeared united in agreeing that the right approach now is for the allegations to be properly investigated and for appropriate proportionate action to be taken.

The problem in this instance as with Hillsborough is that of a Cover Up with the existence of the unit involved and their role not apparently disclosed to the inquiry set up to examine the role of the police in the failure to find the murderers. The trouble as with Hillsborough is that as decades pass by those involved will have retired, memories faded and documentary evidence including visual may not exist for good and for bad reasons but as we have seen with Hillsborough the right people prepared to spend the time required in examining the available information can see what there is to see when others did not look to deliberately failed to do so.

As with Hillsborough one can only feel sympathy, anger and frustration at the impact of all this on the victims and their families directly involved. For them the big picture has no interest, nor should it be and getting justice or a better feeling of justice is understandable and necessary, although at the same time we should avoid base revenge and incitement to mob rule or a distrust in any of the institutions of state created for our defence and protection.

The second part of the programme brought home more vividly than before because more than one of the officers in the unit had established not just long term sexual relationship with supporters of legitimate protest and change movements but expressed love, met parents prior marriage and in one instance a child was born. In one situation the man was already married with children and in another women worked for an electricity company and was not involved with any organisation which any government could have an interest. Understandably some of the women interviewed on camera felt raped, violated, betrayed, shocked, disgusted and very very very hurt. The former officer interviewed said that senior officers to the unit had told them not to establish long term relationships and especially not to fall in love. This officer met some of the women and offered to give evidence on their behalf. He said that he had two casual relationships and it was mentioned that he had successfully sued the force because of the impact of the work on his life with his marriage breaking up and having difficulties in sorting out his adopted personality from his own. He no longer knew who he was.

Again I understand and sympathise with the women in question and clearly there should have been better supervision and clear operational guidance I must also point to the greater picture and say that while every care has to be taken with clear guidance about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, especially on the extent to which the undercover officer can participate in illegal activities, but such activity is appropriate and necessary for a state to organise and I suppose one can argue about gender equality in that the Femme Fatale, the Marta Hari has been used by states, political parties, commercial organisations to gain information including information which discredits ever since there have been leaders, governments and commercial organisations.

Everyone has to wise up what being a citizens in the present world means if they have not already done so. Democratic governments have to be open and honest at what they need to do to carry out their required duties and functions, but there is also an important role for education and parents with civics just as important as sex education.

No comments:

Post a Comment