PC Mark Kennedy had apparently spent a total of seven years infiltrating peaceful environmental protest groups in an operation which was to have culminated in his giving evidence on behalf the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against six protesters accused of conspiring to take over Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire in April, 2010.
In a sensational volte face however, Kennedy offered to testify for the defence instead, thereby causing the collapse of the Crown's case.
The liberal end of the UK’s domestic press has been in foment about the propriety of how such undercover operations are conducted. And rightly, there have been concerns about how Kennedy personally conducted himself throughout this period of deep cover.
Not least, questions are being asked about the sexual relationships Kennedy conducted with women who were part of the movements he infiltrated. There has even been speculation about whether or not his conduct might be tantamount to sexual assualt. Well, if we assume that consent can be negated by deception, then, almost certainly one would have thought, there is at least a case answer. Would these women have consented to sexual intercourse had they known the true nature of this policeman’s intentions? Moreover, is it really reasonable to believe the policeman did not know that any such sexual encounters could well have been based on a deal-breaking deception?
The Guardian's investigation into Kennedy, reveals that since August 2003, the officer, posing as Mark Stone, a "freelance climber", had used fake ID to infiltrate protest groups in 22 different countries.
During that time, Kennedy took part in numerous protests and actions and saw him opposing the building of a dam in Iceland; he was also busy infiltrating anarchist networks in Germany and Italy and travelling through Spain with eco-activists.
During that time, Kennedy took part in numerous protests and actions and saw him opposing the building of a dam in Iceland; he was also busy infiltrating anarchist networks in Germany and Italy and travelling through Spain with eco-activists.
The civil liberties (not to mention the civil litigation) implications of this affair could be far-reaching. Not surprisingly the activists’ lawyer has called for an inquiry into police conduct. Mike Schwarz of Bindmans said the seven-year infiltration by Kennedy raised "serious questions" for the civil liberties of peaceful protesters.
What still seems to be escaping people’s attention however is the sheer cost of this kind of operation.
For example, £300,000 is understood to have been the cost of the April raid which netted the Nottinghamshire power station protesters in the school building where they had gathered on the eve of the planned protest.
 |
| Brian Nelson: British Army Agent in UDA |
That figure almost certainly fails to include the total cost of training and running an uncover officer: from the creation of his ‘legend’ to his expenses and his salary for seven years; that kind of thing don’t come cheap. And furthermore, it would be naive to believe that Kennedy is unusual; there have certainly been suggestions that Kennedy wasn’t the only ‘plant’ within the environmental movement.
Having taken some interest in the conduct of covert warfare in Ireland from the 1920s onwards, TRWS is not unfamiliar with the work of the British Security Services in both Irish ‘jurisdictions’ and can't help noticing some worrying parallels or at least a disturbing emerging trend.
If the British people really want to see what their government and security services are capable of when the status quo is under threat, they might be well-advised to look to the conduct of the Army, MI5, MI6 and the Police (RUC) throughout the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
It has, at this stage, become almost a matter of public record that British Government agents targeted civilians and provided information to death squads; there are credible allegations of the facilitation of assassinations, even inside prisons; violent and psychopathic criminals were allowed to operate with impunity so as long as their value as intelligence assets remained high. Make no mistake, the British Government will act with extreme prejudice in protection of the State’s interests, even to the detriment of that state's legitimacy.
The really worrying thing about this affair, for TRWS at least, is that, while the State might plead some justification for such tactics in its ultimately discredited War on Terror; it is another thing entirely to allow unchecked State agents to behave like criminals in their subversion of organisations whose aims are recognised even by trial judges as having “the highest possible motives”.
Comments
Post a Comment