http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
QuoteAn MP who was involved in last month's G20 protests in London is to call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.
Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.
Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London on the day of the protests, says he was informed by people in the crowd that the men had been seen to throw bottles at the police and had encouraged others to do the same shortly before they passed through the cordon.
Brake, a member of the influential home affairs select committee, will raise the allegations when he gives evidence before parliament's joint committee on human rights on Tuesday.
"When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police,'" Brake said. But when the crowd became suspicious of the men and accused them of being police officers, the pair approached the police line and passed through after showing some form of identification.
Brake has produced a draft report of his experiences for the human rights committee, having received written statements from people in the crowd. These include Tony Amos, a photographer who was standing with protesters in the Royal Exchange between 5pm and 6pm. "He [one of the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very noticeable," Amos said. "Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify him as a policeman and turned on him. He legged it towards the police line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions asked."
Amos added: "He was pretty much inciting the crowd. He could not be called an observer. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but this really struck me. Hopefully, a review of video evidence will clear this up."
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has received 256 complaints relating to the G20 protests. Of these, 121 have been made about the use of force by police officers, while 75 relate to police tactics. The IPCC said it had no record of complaints involving the use of police agents provocateurs. A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "We would never deploy officers in this way or condone such behaviour."
The use of plain-clothes officers in crowd situations is considered a vital tactic for gathering evidence. It has been used effectively to combat football hooliganism in the UK and was employed during the May Day protests in 2001.
Brake said he intends to raise the allegations with the Met's commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, when he next appears before the home affairs select committee. "There is a logic having plain-clothes officers in the crowd, but no logic if the officers are actively encouraging violence, which would be a source of great concern," Brake said.
The MP said that given only a few people were allowed out of the corralled crowd for the five hours he was held inside it, there should be no problem in investigating the allegation by examining video footage.
Pretty terrible if this is true.
Looks like something similar happened before at a protest in Canada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg&feature=related
Not true, so don't worry about it.
Even if it is true, what's wrong with it?
:zzz
Shock and horror, my faith in the forces of good will never be the same.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:19:42 AM
Even if it is true, what's wrong with it?
Their job is to prevent riots, not incite them. Completely ignoring the moral implications, they're simply not doing their job.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 10, 2009, 10:01:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:19:42 AM
Even if it is true, what's wrong with it?
Their job is to prevent riots, not incite them. Completely ignoring the moral implications, they're simply not doing their job.
Their job is to preserve order. What's the best way to preserve order? To eliminate the anarchist element. If they get them riled up, they can arrest them. Eventually, they'll be able to execute them on the spot, but for now, I'll take what I can get.
I blame Gordon Brown.
Quote from: syk on May 10, 2009, 09:44:47 AM
Shock and horror, my faith in the forces of good will never be the same.
Forget to change who you were logged in as?
On topic, sounds rather like crap to me at this point.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on May 10, 2009, 02:23:58 PM
Quote from: syk on May 10, 2009, 09:44:47 AM
Shock and horror, my faith in the forces of good will never be the same.
Forget to change who you were logged in as?
On topic, sounds rather like crap to me at this point.
Sorry, I only have this one account here.
What does one mean in german?
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2009, 04:36:24 PM
What does one mean in german?
What one would think.
Are the Lib Dems the kooky party now or is this dude an outlier?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 05:38:18 PM
Are the Lib Dems the kooky party now or is this dude an outlier?
What's kooky? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:40:38 PM
What's kooky? :mellow:
Launching an official investigation of this allegation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 05:43:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:40:38 PM
What's kooky? :mellow:
Launching an official investigation of this allegation.
What's kooky about asking the Met Police to look into it? It's a serious allegation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:45:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 05:43:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:40:38 PM
What's kooky? :mellow:
Launching an official investigation of this allegation.
What's kooky about asking the Met Police to look into it? It's a serious allegation.
But we also know that it's a lie.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:45:19 PM
What's kooky about asking the Met Police to look into it? It's a serious allegation.
I hereby allege that the Met Police are plotting to assassinate the queen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 05:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:45:19 PM
What's kooky about asking the Met Police to look into it? It's a serious allegation.
I hereby allege that the Met Police are plotting to assassinate the queen.
This guy says he saw it and says there's video footage - God knows there were enough journalists around. I mean after camera-phone footage has come through the Met Police are already being investigated for wrongful death.
Any individual can suggest anything to the IPCC, but they may not to choose to investigate your allegation any further :console:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:54:07 PM
This guy says he saw it and says there's video footage - God knows there were enough journalists around. I mean after camera-phone footage has come through the Met Police are already being investigated for wrongful death.
Any individual can suggest anything to the IPCC, but they may not to choose to investigate your allegation any further :console:
This guy means the MP? No, he's going only on what others said.
In retrospect maybe it's not all that incredibly kooky.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 05:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:45:19 PM
What's kooky about asking the Met Police to look into it? It's a serious allegation.
I hereby allege that the Met Police are plotting to assassinate the queen.
This guy says he saw it and says there's video footage - God knows there were enough journalists around. I mean after camera-phone footage has come through the Met Police are already being investigated for wrongful death.
The wrongful death of a protest kid?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 05:38:18 PM
Are the Lib Dems the kooky party now or is this dude an outlier?
What's kooky? :mellow:
Barry Goldwater.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 08:12:02 PMThe wrongful death of a protest kid?
Nope, a newspaper vendor trying to get home from work. Not a protester.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 08:12:02 PM
The wrongful death of a protest kid?
The wrongful death of a 47 year old newspaper seller on his way from work actually. He had nothing to do with the protests and just worked in the city. He's not shown talking to the police, or anything else. In fact, he's just walking away from them with his hands in his pockets.
Originally there was footage of a riot police officer hitting him in the thigh with the baton and then shoving him over, and he hit the floor quite hard. He was helped up by passers-by who said that after that he was walking looking confused. About a minute or two later he died. The coroner said of a heart attack. The police said that missiles thrown by protestors prevented police medics from reaching him.
Since then another coroner investigated and it was actually massive abdominal bleeding and an internal haemorage that killed him. I believe there's also been some eye witness reports that say that there were no missiles thrown in his direction and the police medics didn't try to help him until some time after - CCTV in the area's being investigated. The police officer who attacked him's under investigation for manslaughter and the Met is under investigation for wrongful death.
He's like a metaphor for the entire newspaper industry.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 10:16:55 PM
He's like a metaphor for the entire newspaper industry.
:lmfao:
We had an undercover police officer of the federal police throwing stones at Berlin state police officers in the last May Day riots in Berlin...
It would be funny if these policemen were not agents provocateurs but in fact just really angry with the system, all the while claiming a salary from it.
I'd be shocked if they didn't use agent provocateurs to hijack/insite a protest. it's a fairly common tactic, but it's only news if they are caught.
Why would they want to start a riot though?
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 08:42:21 AM
Why would they want to start a riot though?
Identify the most volatile and aggressive protestors and remove them before they start a riot? Like a miniature tension strategy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2009, 08:43:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 08:42:21 AM
Why would they want to start a riot though?
Identify the most volatile and aggressive protestors and remove them before they start a riot? Like a miniature tension strategy.
Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.
I don't think riots are much like forest fires, where you can start (and quickly put out) a controlled burn.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 08:50:43 AM
Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.
I don't think riots are much like forest fires, where you can start (and quickly put out) a controlled burn.
It's not like this is cutting edge stuff Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 08:42:21 AM
Why would they want to start a riot though?
In order to jail enemies of the state.
So a fringe MP of the smallest british party allegedely heard someone talking about how they perhaps saw someone throw bottles who might or might not be cops who maybe were undercover.....SOMEONE CALL THE AUTHORITIES!!! :lol:
I have a hard time seeing them try to stir up trouble while being responsible for security at a G20 summit. That sounds just too stupid to be true, even for the police.
But then the US military did use Siegebreaker to help protect Barack Hussein Obama so anything is possible.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 10:42:34 AM
I have a hard time seeing them try to stir up trouble while being responsible for security at a G20 summit. That sounds just too stupid to be true, even for the police.
But then the US military did use Siegebreaker to help protect Barack Hussein Obama so anything is possible.
It's done here.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5D91430F931A15751C1A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10920817
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2009, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 10:42:34 AM
I have a hard time seeing them try to stir up trouble while being responsible for security at a G20 summit. That sounds just too stupid to be true, even for the police.
But then the US military did use Siegebreaker to help protect Barack Hussein Obama so anything is possible.
It's done here.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5D91430F931A15751C1A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10920817
0-2 on examples of the police intentionally citing riots.
Got any actual examples?
The news that the police have undercover officers in crowds is not exactly cutting edge, you know.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 10:42:34 AM
I have a hard time seeing them try to stir up trouble while being responsible for security at a G20 summit. That sounds just too stupid to be true, even for the police.
:lol:
Do you think there's any chance of avoiding riots at any of those things that the professional protesters show up for?
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2009, 12:44:57 PM
:lol:
Do you think there's any chance of avoiding riots at any of those things that the professional protesters show up for?
I could be wrong but I am pretty sure not every economic summit has a riot.
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2009, 12:44:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 10:42:34 AM
I have a hard time seeing them try to stir up trouble while being responsible for security at a G20 summit. That sounds just too stupid to be true, even for the police.
:lol:
Do you think there's any chance of avoiding riots at any of those things that the professional protesters show up for?
Of course not - the riot is the entire point of the exercise for some of these dumbshits.
I like this twist though - show up, start a riot, then blame it on the cops, who of course are the Hated Authority anyway. I can see why this sort of things is irresistible to the Raz's and Shelf's of the world!
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 12:39:46 PM
0-2 on examples of the police intentionally citing riots.
Got any actual examples?
The news that the police have undercover officers in crowds is not exactly cutting edge, you know.
Please clarify your argument here.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 12:46:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2009, 12:44:57 PM
:lol:
Do you think there's any chance of avoiding riots at any of those things that the professional protesters show up for?
I could be wrong but I am pretty sure not every economic summit has a riot.
I don't recall the last time a riot was averted.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2009, 05:45:19 PM
What's kooky about asking the Met Police to look into it? It's a serious allegation.
As reported in the posted news story, the allegations are not comprehensible - which IMO is an essential pre-requisite to being taken seriously.