It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trial collapses after undercover officer changes sides

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Trial collapses after undercover officer changes sides


www.bbc.co.uk

The trial of six green campaigners has collapsed after an undercover policeman who had infiltrated their group offered to give evidence on their behalf.

The six were charged with conspiring to shut down the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottingham in 2009.

The case was due to start on Monday, but was abandoned after Pc Mark Kennedy contacted the defence team to say he would be prepared to help them.

The prosecution subsequently dropped their case.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Wow....just wow! He'd been involved with this group since 2000. This is a twist on Stockholm syndrome alright. The campaigners had said that the policeman wasn't simply a note taker but was right in the thick of things - an agent provocateur?

From The Guardian


He turned up with long hair, tattoos and an insatiable appetite for climbing trees. Few people suspected anything odd of the man who introduced himself as Mark Stone on a dairy farm turned spiritual sanctuary in North Yorkshire.....

....All were, of course, oblivious that Kennedy was feeding back detailed reports to his police commanders as he participated in, and sometimes even organised, some of the most high-profile demonstrations of the past decade.



It seems all peace/green/community groups had better take a good look at their members....if you suspect they're police....you can use them to help you make your case lol.


www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Wow, sounds like a classic Aussie movie...

Stone..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Thanks for the vid link - I'll watch that later. The article put me in mind of 'Steal This Movie' about Abbie Hoffman. I think that's why I was 'wowing' above. Fact is often stranger than fiction but this Marc Kennedy is like a caricature from a B movie. I though tptb were a little more sophisticated. It gives me hope.


Google Video Link





edit on 10-1-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
While his being in the thick of things would suggest an agent provocateur, it, combined with his defection to their side of the court-case, suggests to me that it was just good old personal integrity. Bobby found a cause that spoke to him above and beyond his job and, although he carried on doing said job, eventually decided to give said career a two-fingered salute and stand up for what he believed in.

Or he thought that he could sell the movie rights about his personal journey. Either way, those power stations do disturb me. They seem to actually be forming their own clouds... plus, they're extremely unsightly. (except in the pre-christmas frost, when they got covered in enormous icicles. That was quite appealing).



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
While his being in the thick of things would suggest an agent provocateur, it, combined with his defection to their side of the court-case, suggests to me that it was just good old personal integrity. Bobby found a cause that spoke to him above and beyond his job and, although he carried on doing said job, eventually decided to give said career a two-fingered salute and stand up for what he believed in.


Yes, who knows when Mr Kennedy decided to defect. Either way its making the police look like the keystone cops. Lol....he may end up giving evidence against the police for deviant practices. That would be a sweet irony.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Wow. A huge thank you and huge applause and appreciation to PC Kennedy, for standing up for what is right despite the material cost to himself. Thank God there are still people like him in the world. PC Mark Kennedy now joins the ranks of the real heros of this world.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Here was my answer in this thread



It's not entrapment if you participate or help. It's entrapment if you come up with the idea of doing it and convince them to. If you give money, time, or means to commit an offense it's called being an accessory. Encouraging or being passive in not stopping the offense is called "aiding and abetting" None of the actions mentioned are entrapment. This officer did not come up with the idea to commit the crime, he helped them get the means to do it. It's the same with the terrorism strikes they do in the US. They meet with people who want to commit terrorist acts, help them get the means to do it, ask them if they want to back out, and then watch them try to do it before arresting them... There's no entrapment. Sorry to burst your bubble! Magnum


One thing to remember is that the police doesn't work for one side or the other. Our job is to gather facts and evidence and present them to the prosecutor who will make a decision. It is not in our interest nor the interest of the public to pick sides for 2 simple reason:

1. You pick up the wrong guy and the real guy is still out,
2. Your bias can lead you to behave in a way which will taint the case and let the real guy off on technicalities.

The police officer may have contacted the defense because he may have had facts or evidence proving some other theory. I've had a colleague testify on behalf of the defense in a case. He presented the facts and the guy was let off because he had a legit reason to do what he did (it was a breach of probation).

We do not choose sides, we simply investigate, and present the facts which lead to theories, to the court who decides guilt. We have personal opinions as we are people, but it's not what we know that's important, it's what we can prove in court.

I hope this helps!
edit on 11/1/10 by Magnum007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


I wonder if Kennedy used the allias Stone thanks to our Aussie classic..
Would be ironic because Stone was an undercover cop and he did feel for the biker gang and their strict loyalty code..

Though I wont spoil the movie incase anyone's into classics



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 





One thing to remember is that the police doesn't work for one side or the other. Our job is to gather facts and evidence and present them to the prosecutor who will make a decision. It is not in our interest nor the interest of the public to pick sides for 2 simple reason:

1. You pick up the wrong guy and the real guy is still out,
2. Your bias can lead you to behave in a way which will taint the case and let the real guy off on technicalities.


Lol you would think that his superiors would comprehend that spending 7 years with people fighting environemental causes with altruistic motives would create some form of bias in the man (likely for the campaigners). Human nature no?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
The prosecution (CPS I presume) and the government must have been close to soiling themselves over this.

I imagine that going ahead with this would have opened a very large can of worms for the police and government on it's use of undercover informants and placed agitators. It's not the first time they have been caught doing this and, as the lawyer for the accused pointed out in the interview I just saw, begs the question as to why is this being funded and whio is in control.
If the police are to remain a neutral party, then they cannot at the same time be the ones instigating events in order to carry out prosecutions. This is the same playbook being used both sides of the pond, whether it's anti-terrorist arrests of G20 protests.
I for one strongly object to my tax money being used by the police / government in setting up people for prosecution by instigating these events in the first place.

Dirty little games being played by a politicised police force. and they wonder why the police are losing the public trust!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 



and they wonder why the police are losing the public trust!


I can't remember the last time I heard someone say they TRUST the police force.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


I hear what you say about green groups watching thier backs, but there a more sinister implication to all this. It is my understanding that ALL groups considered likely to protest in an effective manner (i.e. causing sufficient trouble to be a nuisance to the people at the top) are monitored with similar methods. By that I mean that they are likely to all be subject to undercover investigation, and infiltration by police informants, officers , and other agents of the state.
WIth this in mind, we see there are possibilities which run deep through the protest movement in this nation. The student riots before Christmas for example were certainly fairly brutal in some respects, with horse mounted officers charging down kids from college age to about age ten, in an effort to "control" the group . Whos to say, with this case in mind, that the flare ups of violence at those demonstrations were in fact nothing to do with the groups who were protesting? Is it possible that in that protest an agent , such as described here, was responsible for small pockets of violence, which gave the police the trigger they needed to get in the thick of it, and kettle and abuse the genuine protesters?
You can of course see that the media showed those protests to be "thuggery" and nothing more on the part of the protesters, but if the bulk of the violence was kicked off by paid agents, what does that say about the way we run our affairs here? When police officers and agents are used to make a group appear thuggish and uncouth, to prevent public support for that group, that seems to me to be a direct opposition to the transparancy and honesty with which a government ought to behave toward the citizenry.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I completely agree with your post. This is how they handle these matters. It's back to the old 'create the problem and then provide the solution' marketing adage. A police officer has already posted on this thread and I wonder if he would confirm what one of his fellow officers told me 2-3 year ago - that at that time he had been training for 'massive civil unrest' for the previous 4 years.


I could well understand this to be the case. It didn't take a genius to work out that we were living in a financial cuckoo land, that their super bubble would burst, and that a lot of people would suffer the consequences. (My son wrote about it in his first year economics essay in 2003.) It was well within the ken of tptb how long the facade could be maintained. It's a mathematical formula. So have they infiltrated every potential organisational group from way back? Uuurgh....more divide and conquer.

I think if you are part of an environmental, or any other campaigning group you should, as a group, resign yourselves to infiltration by tptb. During the build up to the invasion of Iraq I attended many meetings prior to the Feb '03 demo. They were held in town halls and there were guys present with massive lenses on their cameras who sat on the stage and took pictures of every individual in the hall. It was regarded as an intimidation tactic by the authorities - but the people in the hall sat tight because they believed firmly that they were right and he authorities were wrong. They were willing to be counted.

edit on 10-1-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Its important that people understand that the government of this nation does not act in the interests of its people in all things. At this time, as never before in modern times, the differences between the needs of the people and the actions of thier representatives have NEVER been as stark or as enormous. This simple truth accepted, it stands to reason that a) people will realise the fact, and change thier behaviour toward thier government , and that b) the government will act to gain information on those people, to prevent their involvement in any threat to that government, be that threat political, physical, legal , or moral.
This coupled with the issues highlighted by this case (and this quality thread by the way) means that when involving ones self in political activism, from writting a letter to marching in the streets, you will become a target for all manner of utterly inexcusable treatment from the state, involving breaches of your human rights, and the law of this land. I wont say beware, for that would install forboding and fear. These are your true enemies. Instead just BE AWARE.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


TrueBrit

I couldn't agree with your comments more.....It's easy to do rash things in the heat of the moment but do people really understand the affects of their actions ??

This case is an example of extreme embarrassment for the Authorities and also serves as an example of 'tactics' currently being used which are now justifiable (??) because of the ongoing 'war on terror'....it also goes to increase the distrust by the public of the Government...

Interesting times and very interesting story...
www.bbc.co.uk...

regards

PDUK



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join