Political policing of the protest/environmental movement of the UK
Many of you will be well aware of this, but for those who are not I thought I'd share it.
It all came out after Mark Kennedy came out to defend some accused environmental protesters, causing the case against them to collapse:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/16/mark-kennedy-undercove...
It became apparent that activist groups were routinely infiltrated by the police, many seemingly insighting the groups to violence or other illegal action.
Now it would seem that undercover officers were 'cleared' to have sex with activists to further infiltrate protest groups:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/22/undercover-police-cleared-sex-a...
Questions of whether this could be classed as prostitution aside, this is just insane. Police resources being used to infiltrate, not crimial organizations, but perfectly legal protest or activist groups - it's like something out of a poor low budget james bond film.
Anyway, people are protesting against this now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/24/protester-undercover-officers-s...
How many of the people outside Scotland Yard are actually undercover police though is anyones guess!
In the US, the police doing something like that is what we call Entrapment (not sure if the UK has this law). Basically, any crime committed due to the incitement or encouragement of police, infiltrated or otherwise, cannot be prosecuted in any way, because it cannot be proven that the so-called crimes would have happened without police influence.
Now, they can still do infiltration of gangs and actual criminal groups. But in regards to legal groups, or say, "retired" criminals, that's illegal.
We have laws against entrapment in the UK too. I think there was a fine line here between blending in and incitement in this case. The policeman seems to have got far too involved. Taking part is one thing, but suggesting targets and planning stuff is a whole new ball game. It obviously revealed his ambiguity towards the group, and his superiors should have realised this and taken him out, not only because of the personal problems he was creating for himself, but because, as you suggest, any illegal activity planned by him could be seen as entrapment. Oh dear, multiple commas, I'm rambling....
I agree, he shouldn't have been there at all. There's simply no reason for police officials to infiltrate a legal, peaceful group, especially if the objective is to coax them into violence. Such incitements are underhanded, and a sign of weak investigating. If the police actually had anything on this particular group, they wouldn't need to send someone undercover.
It makes me wonder how they ever got clearance to infiltrate in the first place.
As for police infiltrating every group, legal or not...that sounds horrible, personally. It'll start with activist groups, but eventually, you'll have undercover cops in your book groups arresting you for battery because you gave someone a book that gave them a paper cut.
If you believe what the link above says, you'd think that the authorities had an agenda to stir up trouble and make certain groups look bad in the eyes of the media and general public! Err....
"Everybody knew it was a promiscuous lifestyle ... You cannot not be promiscuous in this group, otherwise you'll stand out straightaway."
I'm going to agree with Steffers; no matter how inbetween (or one-sided) they seem, they still make it sound as if the members in activist groups "get around"... a lot, and you're not cool, or one-of-them, if you don't do the same.
It seems there's a lot of explaning that will be going on over the next few weeks.
i dont think they should have pulled him out so much as not put him in there in the first place. or should the police have undercover agents in all legal organizations, just in case?