The Guardian gets it's knickers in a twist again

[teamsaint]

well, i am not an expert. But i would assume, if this was a proper "undercover " operation, with a genuine cause and need, (ie not a set up by agents provocateurs or similar), that by the time something gets to court, (which they often don't due to evidence rules and incompetence), that the need for cover names etc has then gone.
Just an assumption. And probably a bit naive.
the alternative seems to me to be having undecover officers producing "evidence" in court without even the security for defence of knowing who is actually providing the evidence., and the same officers doing this yrear after year, case after case. Very dangerous
As I said, I think or hope that justice would be better served by a generally truthful approach...and I am far from clear how truthful the govt led undercover approach is. Seems to me that too often (EG in northern ireland) the govt and its undercover ops cause as much terrorism as they solve.

And if you want an example of govt dishonesty, just look at iraq and its non existent weapons of mass destruction.

[johnb]

I know that militant cyclists can be an irritating crowd but I find it difficult to believe that they warrant an undercover policeman. It all seems very strange indeed.

[teamsaint]

I know that militant cyclists can be an irritating crowd but I find it difficult to believe that they warrant an undercover policeman. It all seems very strange indeed.

and from a safety point of view, they need to be hi viz, rather than undercover.
though the bikes need to be kept unde cover.

[Flosshilde]

Or would the Guardian prefer that we don't carry out any undercover operations at all?

I don't know about the Guardian, but I would prefer that the police (& 'security' 'services') didn't carry out covert spying & surveillance on people engaged in legal activities.

[amateur51]

Just the Guardian eh, BTS?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051239/Undercover-police-officer-Jim-Boyling-gave-evidence-oath-using-false-name.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349445/A-undercover-police-officers-exposed-sleeping-enemy.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8837724/Police-chiefs-authorised-undercover-police-officers-to-give-false-evidence-in-court.html

Perhaps you've forgotten too that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has delayed the publication of its report into undercover policing after a BBC investigation uncovered claims an officer underwent trial using his operational alias.

That's some sort of serious, I'd say

[Flosshilde]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...-spies-justice

I think that if you read even just the headline, bts, you'll find that it's not the Guardian but lawyers who are 'getting their knickers in a twist; or, expressing quite reasonable concerns about the role of undercover police officers and the dubious practice of instructing solicitors & giving evidence while masquerading under a false identity. Nobody else would be permitted to do such a thing.

[Mr Pee]

I don't know about the Guardian, but I would prefer that the police (& 'security' 'services') didn't carry out covert spying & surveillance on people engaged in legal activities.

But if within a group carrying out legal activities there are a minority who are planning illegal activities, then Special Branch/MI5 have a duty to investigate. Those who are not involved in anything illegal have no need to worry.

[amateur51]

But if within a group carrying out legal activities there are a minority who are planning illegal activities, then Special Branch/MI5 have a duty to investigate. Those who are not involved in anything illegal have no need to worry.

So you really do mean you can't see any problems with having the Stasi operating in Merrie England then, Mr Pee?

[teamsaint]

But if within a group carrying out legal activities there are a minority who are planning illegal activities, then Special Branch/MI5 have a duty to investigate. Those who are not involved in anything illegal have no need to worry.

Y'know, when Mrs Teamsaint was in hospital having the first little Teamsaint, the conversation turned to Nelson Mandela. (odd for a maternity ward but there you go ).
Anyway classsic quote from one of the new mothers, " He must have done something wrong to be put in prison".
Or maybe mr Pee is right, the innocent don't need to worry about dubious police and and government activity.Nice and simple.

[amateur51]

But that is my point. Why is it 'sort of serious'? Did you not read any of my earlier posts? And please don't give your usual facile flip response. A well reasoned argument would be appreciated by us all.

Likewise, BTS.

That's exactly the point. Even Her Maj's Constab can see what you & SuperSimon can't - their cover is blown & they look at best stupid and incompetent and at worst people that the general public should fear, with good reason.

And don't patronise me, please BTS

[Mr Pee]

So you really do mean you can't see any problems with having the Stasi operating in Merrie England then, Mr Pee?

Stasi? For goodness sake.....

If the security services, for example, suspect that a terror cell may be operating from a Mosque, then I would sincerely hope that they would put said Mosque under surveillance and if possible recruit an informer or infiltrate the congregation.

If it turns out their suspicions were unfounded, then all well and good. If not, then a terrorist outrage may just be prevented. It's a win win situation.

[hafod]

I know that militant cyclists can be an irritating crowd but I find it difficult to believe that they warrant an undercover policeman. It all seems very strange indeed.

I agree that this is the point - a question of proportionality surely?. The risk averse police are prone to over-reaction so that a tactic more appropriate to countering a serious threat is undermined by usage where the threat really does not warrant it. Moreover, undercover activity is probably better deployed where prosecution is not necessarily the end game (although sometimes it may not be possible to avoid this). In recent years politicians have pushed for prosecutions because of the kudos whereas disruption and/or prevention may be more appropriate. But then there is no publicity so no kudos to claim.

[amateur51]

Stasi? For goodness sake.....

If the security services, for example, suspect that a terror cell may be operating from a Mosque, then I would sincerely hope that they would put said Mosque under surveillance and if possible recruit an informer or infiltrate the congregation.

If it turns out their suspicions were unfounded, then all well and good. If not, then a terrorist outrage may just be prevented. It's a win win situation.

Terror cells? Mosques? Oh dear, the sound of goal-posts being moved!

[amateur51]

Where did it say that their cover was blown?

Patronise? Perhaps if you didn't make simple one word posts then one would not feel the need to patronise. Or come out with fatuous Stasi comments then we might take you seriously.

OK, explain to me why you think that my using Stasi is fatuous, please.

[amateur51]

Oh dear..you really don't get it, do you? Here we are trying to have a sensible discussion and your first two posts are single word flip comments. Schoolboy humour at it's worst. How do these two single words contribute to the general discussion or common good? Or is the sole purpose to give you a smug sense of thinking that you are a clever-clogs? Never mind.

Here is the dictionary definition of fatuous


fat·u·ous   [fach-oo-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly.

To suggest that our police force is anything like the Stasi is fatuous.

I have tried to make allowances for you but can now see why Simon has you on ignore. I will also do the same and check back after you have spent a couple of years in Middle School and see if you have grown-up a little bit.

I know what the dictionary definition of fatuous is but I wanted to check if you did too. Significant that you had to look it up, I think. I don't know what you're raving about. I don't think that this case is as frivolous as you appear to believe which is why I made the comparison.

I have no intention of debating further with you. You are being deliberately patronising and provocative, just like Simon.