Student Centre Branded Terrorist
London students who occupied a space in the run-up to the November 30th public sector strike were under the jurisdiction of the Met's SO15 Counter Terrorism Command, FITwatch have learned today.
Bloomsbury Social Centre - which aimed to be a "hub of organising for students, workers and residents in the Bloomsbury area" - held regular reading groups, served food, provided a silent study space and workers rights info evenings. SO15 (Counter Terrorism Command) was born in 2006, when SO12 (Special Branch) and SO13 (Anti-Terrorist Branch) were merged. It claims to be committed to "ensure[ing] that London remains a hostile environment for terrorists." and also polices so-called 'domestic extremists'
According to a witness statement in the case to evict those occupying the building; "The police were concerned that the occupation might be linked to terrorist factions planning to infiltrate the march. The school was in contact late November with both the local Camden police and with Scotland Yard's SO15 Division in connection with these concerns. Initially the police were keen to liaise with the School but their interest has waned recently. I assume that this is because they are satisfied that there is no or insufficient evidence linking the occupiers to any criminal activity of the sort they feared when the occupation commenced."
Given that the statement is dated for December, we propose that this sudden drop in police interest probably had more to do with the passing of the strike day on November 30th. They knew there was no evidence linking the occupiers to terrorism all along. We propose that such baseless insinuations about the nature of both the occupied space and the strike day it sought to support served to further justify the Met's presence on November 30th. Bloomsbury campus and environs were swamped with public order police, plainclothes cops and FIT working together to arbitrarily harass, assault and detain demonstrators. In the evening, the police were particularly heavy handed in their policing of a picket line at Birkbeck College; attacking pickets to usher in strikebreakers. All this in the name of showcasing Bernard Hogan-Howe's new, tough, "total policing" agenda.
This information poses some important questions for the dissenting public:
With both domestic extremist and terrorist operations now 'under one roof' as it were, are the two terms now becoming interchangeable? 'Domestic extremist' is a notoriously nebulous catch-all term and has been used to describe anti-war activists, anti-capitalists, socialists, anarchists, environmentalists and anti-fascists to name but a few. Are those who take part in anti-cuts demonstrations, strike against pension reforms or occupy empty buildings now terrorists? For how long are we going to tolerate being criminalised for dissenting?
It's time to smash total policing.
No justice for Kingsnorth Fitwatchers
Fitwatch regularly get asked what happened to the cops who assaulted members of the group during Kingsnorth climate camp. The case received a large amount of publicity when it was front page of the Guardian in June 2009, and many thousands of people viewed the footage of officers using excessive force against three fitwatchers who were trying to identify officers who weren’t displaying their numbers.
However, until recently, there hasn’t been much to report. The IPCC and West Yorkshire Police (WYP) waddled their way through their initial investigation and subsequent appeals, and despite overwhelming evidence, found most of the behaviour and arrests acceptable behaviour aside from a couple of minor caveats such as the cops not identifying themselves being “regrettable” rather than intentional. PC Fisher, the cop who made headline news through using a stranglehold and excessively pressure pointing one Fitwatcher, was the only officer who complaints were upheld against. However, even the findings against him exonerate him of deliberately intending harm or injury through his use of force.
Given the usual standards of police investigations, this was a victory in itself; a victory only achieved because of the publicity of the case and the video footage which simply couldn’t be ignored. Although the file was passed to the CPS, given the elapsed time, he could not be prosecuted for assault, and misconduct proceedings were recommended against him.
In September 2011, these proceedings finally took place, and whilst he was found to have used excessive force with his behaviour falling below that expected of a police officer, it was decided to take no action against him given so much time had passed since the original incident, despite 27 months of this delay being due to the complaint investigation.
Violent thug, PC (now DC) Fisher
It gets worse. PC Fisher subsequently appealed the decision, won, and is now working as a Detective Constable (DC), which whilst not a promotion in rank, could certainly be seen as a promotion in terms of career prospects. The nature of police misconduct proceedings and appeals means he would not only have had to prove his actions were acceptable, but also that no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion of the first hearing.
After two and a half years of complaints procedures, it has been proven once again that the systems we have to investigate the police are useless organisations with no means or will to implement the outcomes of the investigations it conducts. Despite the findings, despite the overwhelming evidence, Fisher and all the other cops involved in the incident have emerged unscathed.
The case is far from over. All the fitwatchers are still pursuing civil claims against the police for their arrest and subsequent imprisonment. Furthermore, leave is being sought to bring a Judicial Review challenging the misconduct appeal decision.
Moreover, this is yet another case showing the utter ineffectiveness of the IPCC and other bodies to hold the police to account for their actions. It shows, once again, the eagerness and complicity of the police to excuse, justify and get away with violence. The case, whilst sickening, cannot be shocking when we have seen time and time again the police literally getting away with murder.
We cannot rely on the current legal systems to deliver justice, and we cannot rely on it to challenge police violence and criminality. The times we achieve this is when we take direct action on the streets – whether this is monitoring a stop and search, blocking a police camera or fighting back against police violence. We challenge the police when we refuse to be passive, when we refuse to accept their control, and when we act in solidarity with each other.
Resist plainclothes cops
More plainclothes cops were spotted during the public sector protests on November 30th.
The ones pictured here were all identified during the kettle in Panton Street, and all admitted to being cops when challenged.
Plainclothes cops outed on 30th November were surrounded by protesters, derided as scum, with many forced to retreat back behind police lines for protection. Whilst it was great to see the bastards getting a hard time, this is a worrying development and we have to keep up the pressure to ensure hordes of plainclothes cops do not become a regular feature of protests.
We suspect most, if not all, of the plainclothes cops deployed are regular uniformed TSG officers, and have photographic evidence for some of them. Most readers will remember Ian Tomlinson was killed by a TSG cop not displaying his number, and this, alongside many other violent incidents has led to many recommendations for cops to be clearly identified – something which becomes nigh on impossible when dealing with plainclothes cops. Even when warrant cards have been produced, they have been flashed briefly without time for people to record details.
The selection of cops published here is only a fraction of the number present at the Patton Street kettle – so many that at times it felt as though there were more plainclothes cops than protesters. Fitwatch are continuing to collate photographs and will produce further spotter cards of these cops so they are not able to act anonymously.
Although these cops are not acting as agent provocateurs (although as stated in previous posts this doesn’t mean their behaviour is not provocative), it is clear this tactic is being used to cause intimidation and fear. Scared protesters are more passive and people more unlikely to take action when they are worried the person standing next to them might be a cop.
We have to act now, continue the resistance, and stop this before it becomes an established and accepted tactic. These cops should not be allowed on our protests, and they should not be able to mingle amongst us. Total policing is about total control, and Hogan-Howe needs to realise we will respond with total resistance.. These measures, taken to quell and quash protests, must be met with anger and defiance, and a refusal to be subdued.
Plainclothes cops spotter card
SPOTTER CARD PLAINCLOTHES PDF - please copy and distribute freely. We must remember these faces and not allow them near our protests again!
Plainclothes Police and “Agents Provocateurs” Hysteria.
FITwatch have been inspired by the amount of people taking an interest in the policing operations on November 9th. FITwatch recognise critical enagagement with policing strategy as being crucial to our success as a protest movement. However, FITwatch wanted to flag one particular area of concern in this debate.
Part of Bernard Hogan-Howe's "Total Policing" agenda was revealed on the Novermber 9th demonstration the other week, when the choice was made - partly, at least - to depart from a public order strategy based on entirely containment. This presented the demonstration with a number of unexpected problems, which we hope to explore in future. However, for the purpose of this article, we will be looking at the prevalance of plainclothes police officers. With this, we hope to debunk a popular myth about plainclothes officers and prompt a more sober gathering of evidence on their remit on the day, in the hope we can use this knowledge to better combat their influence in future..
There has been alot of talk on the internet, musing as to what the role of plainclothes police was, along with a particular video, which we will address later on. Predominantly, this talk falls into two camps:
1) These plainclothes cops were, in fact, undercover "agents provocateurs" intent on turning a peaceful march violent, through provoking the crowd into confrontation with uniformed police or each other. Such a move, it is believed, would then allow the police to brutally repress the demonstration with impunity, allowing the media an opportunity to misrepresent demonstrators as "violent thugs" and build public support for a state crackdown.
2) These plainclothes cops were, in fact, behaving in a way that would provoke the crowd and are, therefore, deserving of the label "agents provocateurs".
It may seem like distinctions between the two are arbitrary, but in our responses you will understand why they are not:
1) Whilst, at first thought, this may appear to be logical - the latter part certainly chimes with what many of us will have witnessed in the wake of particularly militant demonstrations - it is actually the least logical explanation.
Think back to some of your experiences (or the experiences of others) with protest...the almost pathological obsession that public order police have with maintaining authority on a personal and institutional level. The vice-like grip they attempt to exert on our protests and social movements. The frankly sociopathic behaviour of long-term state infiltrators. The inhumane and indiscriminate containment of (often young) people for long periods of time. The brutal attacks with batons, shields, dogs and horses with the visibly disabled, children and pregnant women targetted. When the police behave like this, do they at ANY POINT act like they need an excuse? Given that they are behaving like this to maintain control of the streets at any cost, is it likely that they would go to the effort of deliberately provoking disorder to get an excuse that they did not need in the first place? Even if they did want to do so, why would they go to the effort of engaging in highly illegal agents provocateur tactics, whilst allowing those agents provocateurs to change in and out of police uniform very publicly amongst a movement that has been characterised by its use of social media, open source publishing and digital recording? After all, the police have managed to escalate conflict situations quite efficiently (but definitely not intentionally!) on demonstrations recently, when angry people have decided to defend themselves against relentless police attacks. Even if all this failed and they still wanted to justify their brutality in the media, they could do so anyway. Even with all the bad press they have had recently, the police still have a sophisticated PR machine that can feed the press numerous lies to justify action they take, even when they murder people (see: Mark Duggan, Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes.)
There were lots of plainclothes cops on November 9th. If they wanted to kick it off, they could have done easily. But nothing happened.
2) This is more addressed to the video that has been circulated around the internet, which presents a series of events in one particular area of the demonstration and poses the question: "undercover snatch squad or agents provocateurs?". FITwatch would answer "undercover snatch squad", but don't just take our word for it. Watch the video here.
Firstly, this video, doesn't run at the speed it was filmed nor with the original sound intact. Whilst we are sure that the person who edited the video had no bad intentions, as a result of it we are unable to assess the overall situation in which these events are set with any degree of clarity. We simply must take the editors word for it, which is never a good starting point. But, from what we can see, we see the following:
(i)a cluster of uniformed police
(ii) some plainclothes police moving away from the camera on the left-hand side of the street, behind the cluster of uniformed police and towards (presumably) the front of the crowd.
(iii) 2 plainclothes police moving into the crowd, on the right-hand side of the cluster of uniformed police, in roughly the same direction as the police in point (ii). They barge their way into the crowd, with some unfortunate lad getting a bit of a 'roughing up' at first. An officer goes over to have a look, and the plainclothes cop flashes a warrant card. Unsuprisingly, the uniformed officer becomes disinterested. We then see nothing more. It's reasonable to assume they continued barging their way through the crowd to get to the front.
(iv) Fast forward to the front of the demo, where we see a few other plainclothes join the ones identified earlier, on the other side of police lines. Then we see a young man getting brutally snatched and detained by a mob of cops.
(v) The editor claims that, at this point, the crowd become angry. However, no disorder occurs. We are also told at an earlier point in the video that people begin to point the plainclothes out and there is definitely some panicking and people screaming "agents provocateurs!".
FITwatch analysis:
Points (i)-(iv) are just a variation on a snatch squad. Whereas uniformed public order officers would plough their way though a crowd in a single, triangular formation, these plainclothes officers clearly have the advantage of being less identifiable, so they can split up without risking their safety too much. If we accept point (v), then we accept that the crowd is much slower to respond to a plainclothes snatch squad than a uniformed one. Therefore, we must pose the question, did the police conduct the snatch squad in plainclothes because they thought it would be more provocative or less provocative? Would we have seen a greater response from the crowd had they been uniformed? Would they have made it all the way to the other side of the crowd with such impunity had they been uniformed? Or, conversely, if they were there to provoke disorder, why did they not succeed?
It is comforting for us to resort to the popular mythology and terminology of protest when we are frightened or disorientated by police tactics. But we must think about the bigger picture when responding to such events. With more sober reflection upon the facts, we find ourselves empowered by our new knowledge. The Police are beginning to implement a colossal shift in their tactics on street level, departing with well over a decade of orthodoxy in public order policing. Just as, one year ago, the demonstration at Millbank brought to an end almost one decade of stagnation in radical protest movements. It is now the police who are lagging behind us. It is now the police who have a new, uncertain approach. It has taken them a year to respond to our growing movement - a movement that has been so effective and so hard to police because of its diversity of tactics, its solidarity and its likeness to the "many headed hydra": they cut off one of the hydra's heads, and two more grow back in it's place. We could respond with entirely new tactics tomorrow, if we wanted to.
But a note of caution. If we proceed to invoke the activist bogeyman, the "agents provocateurs", with no real evidence we could lose all of this. Although FITwatch acknowledge that police attacks are often provocative by default, we think it is unhelpful to label them a deliberate provocation. When the police attack us, it is because they want to regain control of us, not because they need an excuse to exert further control on us. People take action in many ways to defend themselves against police attacks, from linking arms, running away, filming them, challenging them verbally or, in some cases, fighting back to protect themselves and others. If we accept that the state brutalises us, just to provoke us, just to brutalise us further then we are essentially accepting a constant cycle of brutalisation. We are accepting the inevitability of our repression on the streets. Thus, we are accepting the futility of fighting for the world we want to live in. We are eliminating our collective agency in a time of mass social upheaval. We are essentially saying that when we resist, things will only get worse, rather than better - and that those who resist are simply mindless pawns in a game where the state has total control.
Such talk is as dangerous as it is incorrect. If the state are employing these tactics for any deeper psychological purpose, it will be this one. And we can fight back NOW - by refusing to perpetuate our own division, demoralisation and destruction. Yes, the state is going to get nasty. But they are doing so because they want to destroy our movement, not provoke it into being even more ferocious. We have the power, they are on the backfoot, WE CAN WIN!
Solidarity, FITwatch Crew.
Plainclothes cops on education demo
These are a selection of the plainclothes cops spotted on the education demo on 9th November. Fitwatchers witnessed the violent arrest or one protester and followed the officers. Other photos have come from various sources.
REMEMBER THESE FACES! THESE COPS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED ON OUR PROTESTS AGAIN!
Fitwatch will be producing handy printable spotter cards of these officers for use on the streets.
Don’t be intimidated! See you on the streets!
On the eve of the mass education/sparks/cabbies protest on 9th November, it is clear the state are trying to intimidate us.
From the news today that the police have written to protesters arrested at previous demonstrations warning them off protesting (see picture), to the “total policing” of the last couple of weeks witnessed at the squatting demo and deaths in custody march (amongst others), the message is clear; attempt to protest and the state will clamp down, act violently, and make arbitrary arrests. And, if you’re unlucky enough to get caught, the courts are making sure long deterrent sentences are passed, regardless of how insignificant the individual action, in attempt to scare us away from future protest.
However, whilst even seasoned activists have admitted to being a little scared at the current state of policing, it’s not all doom and gloom, and we mustn’t be tricked into feeling intimidated. It’s nearly the anniversary of the Met’s attempt to silence Fitwatch for giving common sense advice to the Millbank protesters. This is still recommended reading, as is this Fitwatch call to action.
Above all, we should be applying the lessons we have learnt on the streets over the last year. When we don’t just ‘walk on by’, and act in solidarity with each other, we are stronger; when we act as fast mobile blocs, we are more effective and harder to contain; when we sit down or put our hands in the air, we are fodder for baton strikes and kettling; when we refuse to play the divide and rule game and condemn fellow protesters, we are more threatening.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, when we mask up, and make no comment to police questioning, we are harder to convict and lock up.
See you on the streets!
Armed police raid Kurdish tent at OccupyLSX
Last night, the Kurdish tent at the OccupyLSX camp was raided by armed police following an alleged tip off of a gun being present. They searched the tent for over half an hour unsurprisingly finding nothing.
The Kurdish community has long been criminalised, and labelled as terrorists for their attempts to oppose and draw attention to the repression they face in Turkey, and this is another attempt to frighten and intimidate the Kurdish community coming just a month after the Halkevi Turkish and Kurdish Community Centre in Hackney was raided. However, given the Kurdish community is used to standing up to thugs with guns they are not easily intimidated.
However, the fact armed police were sent to raid the tent of Kurds supporting OccupyLSX is extremely worrying, and must be opposed. To the more cynically minded this could be seen as an attempt to split support for and amongst protesters, and we hope the Kurdish protesters are receiving full support and solidarity from those at OccupyLSX.
Don’t just walk on by!
Anonymous fitwatcher at DSEi protests
It's getting to that time of year...the students are back, the weather is getting colder (so you won't be removing your "seasonally appropriate" scarf and hood when the cops tell you to!) and the political climate is already starting to get considerably hotter.
Since this time last year, we've had dissent articulated in many different ways. From the regular store occupations of UK UNCUT, the university occupations, squatted freeschools and militant demonstrations of the student movement, the spectacular defiance of March 26th, several wildcat strikes in the cleaning and building trades as well as the urban uprisings in August.
This winter, there is every reason and every opportunity to get out on the streets and fight for the world that you want to live in, with whatever tactics suit you best.
But none of us can do this alone. We rely on each other for support and solidarity in the face of a common enemy: the repressive policing of our demonstrations.
If you are out at the ongoing Occupy the Stock Exchange, the Education Demonstration on November 9th or taking part in strike action on November 30th keep an eye out for these tactics...
* Stop & Search:
You are not required to give your name and address under any stop and search power. If you see someone being stopped, ask them if they are okay. Try filming the cops doing the search if the person being searched consents to it. Witness the search. Remind them they do not have to give details. Take the cops shoulder numbers. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Tweet it. Facebook it. Use whatever means you can to let your fellow demonstrators know WHERE and WHEN it is happening.
* Arrest for Breach of the Peace:
Breach of the Peace is not a recordable offence. This means they do NOT have the power to demand your NAME, ADDRESS, DNA OR FINGERPRINTS. They are using this power to gather intelligence on people and they will keep doing it until people wise up and refuse to give them what they're looking for. Again, communicate this.
* FIT:
You know what we're going to say. DON'T PUT UP WITH IT. End of! Be brave. Legally speaking, you do not have to comply with overt surveillance. However, if you block their cameras from taking anyone else's image, it may constitute an obstruction. However, the more people that do this with determination, the less likely arrest is. FIT are there to intimidate people into being 'orderly'. If they feel their presence may cause 'disorder', they will leave. Once again, it is essential that you use all means at your disposal to communicate WHEN and WHERE FIT are around. Take photos. Give 'em hell!
* Mask Up:
Wear as many things as you can to defend your anonymity from the prying eyes of the surveillance state. They need to know nothing about us other than that we oppose them. If a s.60(a)(a) is in place, the police have the power to ASK YOU to remove your face coverings under threat of arrest if you don't. If they pull it off your face, that is an assault.
Case law also dictates that it is NOT a criminal offence, under s60, to keep face coverings on if they are seasonally appropriate attire. That is, it is cold and you're wearing a scarf and a hood etc. Whilst this little nugget of information will not stop you from getting arrested if they get their hands on you, it will likely win your court case.
It might seem like alot, but if you can familiarise yourself with this information, you will be alot safer, more confident and more assertive on demonstrations. We are also more use to each other when we are well informed. We are better placed to act in solidarity when we know what we're doing. This is what makes us strong.
If you apply this knowledge out there on the streets, you will be taking direct action against the surveillance state. And we all know direct action gets satisfaction.
Good luck, see you on the streets!
Solidarity with Copwatch, France
Fitwatch is giving full solidarity to Copwatch in France who have been threatened with closure by the French authorities for publishing photos of cops known for violence or links to the far right.
The Interior Ministry has filed a case against them which has ordered six French internet providers - Free, France Telecom, SFR, Bouygues Telecom, Numericable et Darty Telecom to block the site, although it is still available using Tor.
In France, there are offences of 'outrage', involving insulting a public servant with supposedly unfounded accusations (eg; calling a cop a fascist to their face) and a law against publishing a public servant's photo without their
permission.
Copwatch are continuing to publish photos of cops accused of brutality and fascism, and are refusing to be silenced, and we send our solidarity in their fight against repression.
Follow Us!
Donate to Fitwatch
Hosted by tachanka.org
Recent Posts
- Student Centre Branded Terrorist
- No justice for Kingsnorth Fitwatchers
- Resist plainclothes cops
- Plainclothes cops spotter card
- Plainclothes Police and “Agents Provocateurs” Hysteria.
Links
- Campaign Against Criminalising Communities
- Corporate Watch
- Glasgow Defence Campaign
- Green and Black Cross
- HSBC Defence Campaign
- Legal Defence and Monitoring Group
- Netcu watch
- Network for Police Monitoring
- Newham Monitoring Project
- Police State UK
- Random Blowe
- Standing up to surveillance conference
- Statewatch
Archives
Categories
Twitter Feed
- RT @AdamRamsay: oversized monopoly now at #nPower HQ to protest at the dominance of the big 6 & failure to tackle fuel poverty - get in ...
- RT @Jules_Carey: PoliceForces budget cut tips: don't phone Directory Enquires & TalkingClock, stop losing equipment & cut spending on ex ...
- RT @copwatcher: Results of counter-Olympic poster competition http://t.co/0Uv1P7fT @SchNEWS @ProjectMimique @RooftopJaxx @teacherdude @a ...
- @khan_sophie will let you know.