Sussex police have recently started to use new forms of repressive tactics for policing demonstrations. They seem to have taken a break from head cracking to trial what they have termed ‘Police Liaison Officers’ or PLOs at the recent Smash EDO demonstration on June 4th. This may not be simply a new fad by the cops, but could be part of a new era of repression based on the relatively new ‘science’ of crowd psychology. The PLOs are the brainchild of Dr. Clifford Stott, a crowd psychologist working with the cops to ‘manage’ crowds. This man was seen at the Smash EDO demo wearing a blue observer vest, presumably to check up on his PLOs he’d just trained.
He tweeted this last week just before the Smash EDO demo A brilliant few days creating PLTs in Sussex. A long way to go but a rubicon has been crossed. Helping secure ECHR based approaches!
The Sussex Police PLOs are predominately female, and use a nicey-nicey approach to try and create the illusion that they are the “good” people and on our side. On top of this, Graham Bartlett, the local police chief has “praised” Smash EDO for their good behaviour.
Crowd psychology seeks to pacify social movements by creating a situation where the crowd ‘self polices’. The following is a description of how this could be used in practice by leading crowd psychologists:
“using a ‘dialogue police’ unit, whose officers work before, during and after risky situations to communicate with radical groups and getting the crowd to “self-police” by actively undermining those trying to initiate “trouble” or at the very least making it easier for the cops to deal with them.”
This is almost exactly what we saw at the recent Smash EDO demo.
After the riots it seems the police are finding new and invidious ways to keep us in our place, which is leading to a new form of policing where police are integrated into the crowd, not as undercovers, as they have been previously, but as part of it. Crowd psychology, if it takes off, may result in a form of repression which is more dangerous to social movements than water cannon or rubber bullets, as it creates a situation where the public become more sympathetic to the police than to those facing repression. On top of that, PLOs suck the energy and solidarity away from the people on the streets. What is clear is we need to make sure we do not allow our demonstrations to be infiltrated by the police in this way and we make sure they are not welcome. Once we allow them to be part of our demos in this way we have already lost, as it will be the cops and not us calling the shots.
The use of this new tactic shows us the cops are out of their depth and cannot deal with the new wave of social unrest sweeping the UK in recent years. To beat them at their game we have to stay one step ahead of them by understanding these tactics and what they mean for us before they are truly put to use.
You can see more about Dr. Clifford Stott and his theories here:
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Clifford-Stott/179023995454028
LinkedIn profile: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dr-clifford-stott/1a/154/760
Twitter feed: http://twitter.com/#!/CliffordStott
Centre for Investigative Psychology profile: http://www.i-psy.com/people/people_stott.php
This article is a repost. The original appeared on indymedia
The high court has decided that it is perfectly ok for the cops to gather as much intel about anyone they like who is in any way connected to the Smash EDO campaign – or any other that uses direct action or civil disobedience.
Yesterday they announced that the domestic extremism unit, in holding personal and profiling information on John Catt (aged 87, no criminal record), had done nothing wrong. John had associated with ‘violent and criminal’ Smash EDO protesters, so getting a police record was merely a ‘predictable consequence’ of hanging about with the ‘wrong sort’ of protester. The police, the court held, had a ‘need to identify relationships within protest groups’.
Here at Fitwatch we have always believed that we have to take our own action to protect us from spying, disruptive and manipulating cops. We think there is now an urgent need to send out the message that we, still, will not tolerate this type of policing. So this is a call for Fitwatchers, old and new, to stop the cops from filming, photographing and gathering data on Smash EDO protesters on Monday.
To help new Fitwatchers along, we have published a spotter card just for the occasion, focusing particularly on ‘intelligence’ cops we’ve dealt with in Sussex in the past (see below!). Remember, anyone can Fitwatch. Take a placard, a banner a scarf or even an umbrella, and make it plain that we do not volunteer to be filmed by them. Block the shot, stand in the way, hold up that banner.
Act in groups to be safest – cops are less likely to arrest if the FIT teams are confronted by larger groups of FWers, and more likely to simply withdraw to safer territory.
Take your camera, take their pictures and post a link below so we can see them on the site. Turn the tables, and do a little counter-surveillance of your own!
As avid readers of the comments pages of this blog and indymedia will know, two of the plain clothes cops who terrorised and dragged people out of the N9 student demo have now been identified. The comments that were posted are re-posted in full below.
PC Chris Healey and PC Giles Dainty, both working for the TSG, have been spotted as a result of their recruitment into the ‘torch security team’. Giles Dainty’s facebook page (see link below) provides the following ‘activities and interests’ info: British and Irish Lions 2009, Armed Forces Day, British Army, HS2 – SAY NO, Supporting the Met Police against the London rioters, Men’s Health Survival of the Fittest, Metropolitan Police Rugby Football Club
Nice work to all of those who dug this info out.
We know their faces, and now we know their names. And we will remember them.
Identified as PC Giles Dainty (nice name for a member of the TSG!)
Main source of info:
Google cache of his Facebook page (which is strangely – or not – unavailable at present)
Seems like he attended Wellinborough public school between ’92 and ’97 – see page 6, right hand column, item 3 of…
The cop to the right of him on the spotter card (the one I call ‘baby face’) is also on the ‘Torch Security Team’ (aka TST) and I am attempting to id him as well.
You can see PC Dainty and PC ‘Baby Face’ together in this photo from the TST training session:
[PC ‘Baby Face’ is just behind and to the right of PC Dainty]
PC ‘Baby Face’ now identified
‘Baby Face’ is now identified as PC Chris Healey
FIT team and the new ‘baby blue’ Police Liasion cops were much in evidence on the Mayday march in London. We’ve also had reports of a PCSO in a FIT role – first time we’ve come across that!
Some reports have suggested that the FIT were in evidence partly because the cops seem fixated on jumping on anything they take to be the flags of ‘proscribed’ groups, such as that of the Kurdish PKK. They never seem to tire of harassing Kurdish demonstrators.
But it was also brought to our attention that there was a ‘U’ serial (TSG) marching with Occupy/UKUncut at all times. And that the friendly ‘police liason’ were hanging around too, ‘liaising’ between protesters and the TSG, passing on what they would have picked up about the protesters ‘intentions’.
The police also had at least one PCSO sticking to the stewards and hanging out with them throughout, presumably to ‘liaise’ between stewards and cops.
Pics show the lovely baby blue Police Liason; FIT regular Glyn Williams with photographer Gavin Paul (Gavin Paul once threw a Fitwatcher to the ground because they dared to take photos of him, but he seems happy enough using brute force to get pics of others); and weasel-faced photographer Neal Williams here seen leering rather disturbingly at the attractive young woman just out of shot.
We at FITwatch have been a bit quiet recently – but we are leaping back into life with an open meeting on Sunday 25th March, 1pm at the London Action Resource Centre.
With the Met trying to criminalise face masks, implementing new data
gathering systems, and making an issue of ‘robust’ policing, there is now
more need than ever to counter FIT practices.
FITwatch has made life hard for the FIT over the last four years and
continues to do it still. But it needs your help. If you are fed up to
the back teeth of the police shoving cameras in your face, of being
hassled, kettled and even arrested so that police can get your details,
come and help us turn the tables on them.
It’s time we stopped the FIT.
LARC, 62 Fieldgate Street, London E1 1ES, 1pm, Sunday 25th March
The following article, originally posted on the Vancouver Media Co-op website, has been reproduced here by FITwatch as we believe it is of relevance in the ongoing debate around the wearing of masks on demonstrations. FITwatch always has, and always will, encourage the wearing of masks on demonstrations – our rulers need not know who we are in order to know that we oppose them.
Some activists are vocally adamant against mask wearing at protests, while others just go along with them not really examining the ignorance and prejudice behind this anti-mask wearing sentiment. Even people who work within anti-authoritarian and/or direct action oriented groups fall prey to anti-mask wearing fallacies and attempt to place limits on where and how wearing a mask is appropriate. The onus is always placed on the mask wearer to appease people who are uncomfortable with mask wearing and never on the people who don’t wear masks to expand their knowledge and understanding of mask wearers, to push their own envelopes and challenge the conditions in wider society that generate the prejudice against mask wearers.
Imagine if the same amount of so called critique, or negative attention and enforcement were lodged against people who wear red bulbous noses because they make a protest look bad on the news because they literally are a bunch of clowns… Or what if this demand for people to alter their physical appearance were lodged at people who wear kafia’s, because a lot of people are really ignorant about what a kafia actually means and it alienates the general public away because activists are seen as a bunch of extremists? If this were the case with any other segment of the activist population it would not be tolerated. But because these people are wearing masks and have been successfully vilified as ‘violent protesters’, ‘twenty something white boys’, and ‘agent provocateurs’ it’s open season on them.
Structural Exclusion & Repression:
People who wear masks and their supporters are often excluded from participating in public debate around wearing masks. Thus making it easier for the opposing argument to frame it in their favour. People who wear masks to demos tend to:
* Have lesser access to space in public discussion, such as being invited to speak at forums or have their articles published in alternative news sites or magazines;
* Have fewer public figures in their organizations, thus less entitlement to participate in public debate when it is available – because they lack writing or public speaking skills;
* Be left out of the important informal dialogue that influences decision making in activist cliques and friend groups;
* Have an informal and decentralized style of organizing that makes coordinating with mainstream activist groups challenging.
* Also, while anonymity has an advantage at a protest, it makes it difficult to speak about publicly without divulging your identity and ruining the whole point of having been anonymous in the first place.
Further, people who oppose mask wearing, coincidentally, share the same message as the police state and the corporate media, thus have all the privilege in the world to bemoan how mask wearers are not welcome at their protests. Whereas mask wearers do not have the ‘legitimacy’ in society to get the same amount of air time and sympathetic press.
People who wear masks –no matter what their behaviour actually is, are commonly viewed as terrorists by mainstream society and this perception is perpetuated by many activists. Protest organizers routinely generate a hostile environment for people wearing masks by:
* Allowing police to harass and arrest them for no reason accept for wearing a mask (which is not a crime in Canada**) malign and humiliate them by making public announcements against wearing masks,
* Sending marshals around to tell people to take off their masks.
* The worst of it, and most ironic, is that ‘peaceful’ protesters will physically assault a person wearing a mask by ripping it off their face shouting ‘no violence!’ Meanwhile organizers do nothing to prevent this kind of behaviour, and will often blame the mask wearer for causing the problem.
In this hostile context mask wearers are badgered to justify and ‘re-evaluate’ the tactic of wearing masks. But even before any conversation can begin, mask wearers are disadvantaged within activist organizations and anti-mask wearers do little to mitigate this imbalance. Above and beyond doing little, they often take advantage of it.
Dominating the Discourse:
People who are opposed to wearing masks at demos put mask wearers on the defensive, as though showing your face is the innately correct stance and wearing a mask is inherently flawed. Showing your face is the accepted norm and keeping space open for wearing a mask must always be fought for. People who are opposed to wearing masks enforce their values with coercion and even physical violence, yet mask wearers don’t force people to wear masks. While people wearing masks are frequently assaulted at protests, the concept of a masked protester going up to someone, grabbing their head and tying a bandana over it is just umm, absurd! But the problem anti-mask wearers have is considerably less tangible than that…
The two most prevalent themes consistently at the basis for anti-mask wearing arguments are: “I/we have nothing to hide, because we are upstanding citizens exercising our legal rights in a democratic society,” and “It looks bad on the news, distracts from the ‘real’ message and then alienates ‘the people’ from joining the movement.” But there are many variations, including; ‘people who wear masks are unaccountable for their behaviour’, ‘people who wear masks are agent provocateurs’, ‘people who wear masks are violent’, ‘wearing a mask is racist/sexist’, etc. When asked to back up these arguments with any kind of evidence based reasons, anti-mask wearers have little to say except ‘because I said so’ and all manner of circular logic and irrational justifications.
But turn the discourse around, and some interesting reflections appear: ‘Nothing to hide,’ –the slogan of the upstanding citizen, changes to a grave and even negligent misunderstanding of the nature of democracy under capitalism and the role of policing and military agencies. ‘Alienates the people’ –the plea of an earnest community organizer, reveals a complacent attitude towards corporate media and its hostile role against resistance movements. And further indicates an abuse of power because what it is basically saying is that, “I’m too lazy to talk to the people in my group/community/family when they swallow the corporate/police state line against wearing masks, and it would be a lot more convenient for me if you just didn’t wear a mask, because clearly, my time and effort is worth more than yours because I’m a legitimate community organizer and you are a (…place prejudiced stereotype here…)”
Anti-mask wearers assert that pro-mask wearers have little to no thought or analysis behind the choice to conceal their identity. In reality, wearing masks is a powerful symbol of a popular/common response to increasingly harsh repression of resistance movements. While mask wearers are not a unified group, individuals who choose to wear masks to protests do so along the spectrum of a deep analysis of the development and acceleration of capitalism and rapidly changing dynamics in modern society. This analysis is an overarching umbrella that is fed by and grounded in anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist values and practices. Upon examination of why people wear masks to protests and why it is important, it becomes resonantly clear that wearing a mask is a key element to a larger understanding of and approach to anti-authoritarian resistance movements.
The Anti-Authoritarian Anti-Capitalist Resistance Movement:
Anti-mask wearers seem to believe removing a mask is a simple matter of pulling a piece of fabric off your face, but in reality, it is asking people to behave in a way that counters their holistic and in depth approach to resistance. It’s not just a matter of ‘hooligans vs. real community members.’ While many, even most, people who wear masks might do so intuitively rather than with an articulate manifesto at hand, wearing a mask to a demo is very clearly a product of a larger ethic towards resistance and also, a very important symbol and marker of that ethic. Demanding that people remove their masks is further marginalizing and invisiblizing this entire approach to resistance and movement building –which, in fact, is very much a part of the evolution of anti-capitalist and anti-colonial liberation movements.
Wearing masks at demos is a simple, practical solution to maintaining personal privacy and security. But it is also an important exercise of some fundamental liberties, including freedom of expression and freedom of association. And a critical example of why these freedoms are not just symbolic gestures but are crucial elements of a robust social fabric. Wearing a mask asserts an identity that delves far beyond the individual and represents an aggressively critical analysis of capitalist society and a radical (as in to the root) approach to dismantling it. To demand the people who work within this tendency remove their masks is to exercise a grave degree of ignorance that denies and disregards the existence of this historic and globally relevant stream of ideas and practices –and seriously impedes their capacity to organize and grow. Repression of wearing masks within resistance movements is part and parcel of the overall repression of anti-capitalist anti-authoritarian organizing in mainstream society.
The remarkable ambivalence with which the police treat right wing groups was clearly evident in the policing of the EDL demonstration this week in Leicester. Leicestershire constabulary were clearly happy with facilitating the EDL demonstration, while being equally clearly committed to clamping down heavily on any show of community based opposition, particularly when that opposition came from local Asian youths. One group, which had gathered in a nearby park, were attacked by police dogs, leaving a man in hospital. Others faced ‘robust’ policing from batons and horses.
Despite their assertions that the EDL are not ‘extremists’, the Domestic Extremism Unit did send along their public order intelligence officers Ian Skivens and Mark Sully, accompanied by football intelligence officers from Nottingham and Leicester – these are the FIT cops shown below. Their intelligence gathering was not, however, limited to the EDL, and the FIT cops below appeared to spend more time filming the anti-fascist response than the EDL. Added to that, there were a good number of local intelligence and PREVENT funded cops out keeping an eye on the local youth.
In contrast to environmental and anti-arms trade campaigners, the Domestic Extremism Unit apparently does not consider the EDL an ‘extremist’ group. In April 2011, the National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism Adrian Tudway, emailed a Muslim organisation telling them that the EDL are “not extreme right wing”. He added: “I really think you need to open a direct line of dialogue with them, that might be the best way to engage them and re-direct their activity.”
This was a bit much even for some of the police force. Zaheer Ahmad, president of the National Association of Muslim Police, responded: “There is a strong perception in the Muslim communities that the police service does not take the threat of right wing extremism seriously…. The community perception is reinforced by the position of the National Domestic Extremism Unit which does not view EDL as right wing extremists.”
Plain clothes coppers also hung about on the fringes of the EDL demonstration. Those operating within the EDL demo – such as the two shown below – had a very different role to plain clothes cops seen on other demonstrations. No plain clothes snatch squads here. When the EDL kicked off they merely pulled hi-vis vests from their pocket labelled ‘police liaison officer’ and hurried off to ‘liaise’.
Well, we always knew HMIC’s ludicrously named ‘review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest’ was going to be a farce, and we haven’t been disappointed.
The 48 page report published today fails to address any of the concerns addressed by activists, and whilst claiming to recommend tightening of the term ‘domestic extremism’, conflates anti gm crop actions with right wing nail bombers, and invents another non existent subjective term ‘serious criminality’.
‘Serious criminality’ is, in the context of the report, defined as things which “include[s] serious disruption to the life of the community arising from criminal activity”. Protesters are used to seeing the very broad circumstances in which the police impose Section 12 and 14 conditions on protests on the basis of “disruption to the community”. These have ranged from sit down blockades at Aldermaston, recent conditions on student marches, to chanting slogans at arms dealers outside a hotel. ‘Serious criminality’ is a ridiculous phrase which includes as much inbuilt ambiguity as ‘domestic extremist’ especially given the report admits to finding that “Precise definitions can also be counter-productive, as the nature of extremist activity morphs in the way it operates”. Furthermore, HMIC are reluctant to even state what is a crime in relation to activism stating ‘generally no commodity is traded; therefore the crimes can be more difficult to define’.
NPOIU wants to create a sinister underground world of plotting activists, dangerous beings committed to “serious crimes, involving threats to life and harm to individuals, serious damage to property, and the accquistion of weapons such as firearms and homemade bombs”. However,the main notable incident cited for environmentalist action was the “hijacking of a coal train”. Although the word hijack was used repeatedly in the media reporting of the case, it is an emotive word to use in the context of this report to describe people occupying the roof of a train. The word hijack immediately evokes images of guns, threats and hostages, especially given the nail bombing campaign by right wing extremists is referenced within the same section.
The train action was committed by a group which included teachers and a preacher; a group who were described by the trial judge as “eloquent, sincere, moving and engaging”. 21 out of 29 members of the group were given conditional discharges showing the level of seriousness the judge deemed the case. However, this is the pinnacle of “serious criminality” according to HMIC, showing disruption to communities is, as usual, simply shorthand for disruption to large corporations.
Perhaps more importantly, or at least most insultingly for those affected, the report doesn’t address the civil and human rights issues of those affected by the undercover operatives. The overriding view that if the officers had behaved properly then none of this would have happened is simply not good enough. In contrast to the emotive language of train “hijacking”, the lives NPIOU have stamped over; the lives to which they have caused irreparable damage are simply and disgustingly labelled “collateral intrusion”. Meanwhile there are several references to the psychological difficulties these poor police officers have to endure.
And throughout the report, there’s the figure of Mark Kennedy – HMIC refused to address any of the evidence in relation to other identified undercover cops – and despite claims he “did help to uncover serious criminality”, there is no evidence he actually prevented any criminality from taking place with the report admitting that “the lack of specific outcomes makes an objective assessment of success very difficult”. Kennedy didn’t prevent the actions happening he provided intelligence on, didn’t contribute to prosecutions, and has, according to the report, no discernable role.
Finally, the one area HMIC and Fitwatch are equally critical of is the quality of intelligence gathered finding “the rationale for recording and retaining the intelligence was not strong enough (in terms of ‘necessity and proportionality’ tests)”. However, instead of dealing with this issue, HMIC “will revisit this issue separately”. However, there is no indication of when this will be ‘revisited’ or whether the results of this visit will be public.
This is a disgusting report showing utter contempt for activists, and a complete disregard for their rights with the only recommendations made being ones which will make no real material difference in the way the units operate. HMIC are not, as the claim to be “inspecting policing in the public interest” but inspecting policing in the interests of the state and corporations.
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?