The Guardian gets it's knickers in a twist again

[John Skelton]

(Why is it "emotive" to call joining an organisation or group under cover of supporting it using a false identity with the intention of reporting / informing on its activities, membership, etc. spying? )



"It is highly disreputable to send someone into court to lie about who they are and what they were. It is making a mockery of the courts, the judge and the entire justice system.

It is pretty jaw-dropping stuff and shows that the police were taking a cavalier attitude towards the courts."

Kenneth Donald John Macdonald, Baron Macdonald of River Glaven, QC (Director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales 2003–2008) getting his knickers twisted.

Are you seriously arguing that it is OK for police officers to give false identities in court, under oath?

[amateur51]

Do you REALLY believe mrP that only those who have done wrong have EVER been investigated by the Police ?
so all that fuss about the Irish guys in Birmingham was made up by the lefty press ?
I've worked in prisons and , of course, everyone you meet is a victim of a miscarriage of justice
BUT some people REALLY ARE
and in recent years I seem to remember the police shooting dead an innocent man at Stockwell and walking completely free with NO prosecution

naive and deluded would be a rather accurate description of someone who has so much trust !

We still haven't had the full report on the fatal shooting by police that started 'the Tottenham riots 2011'

[Mandryka]

I've not been following this bad-tempered discussion too closely, but I think it's worth enlarging on BTS's more general point about the Guardian. Yes, it's holier-than-thou attitude often grates, as does its habit of employing would-be trendy middle-class teenagers to write most of its cultural coverage. There is also a slavish pan-Americanism (albeit 'liberal' America - which is every bit as dangerous as right-wing America, though not so obviously so) that you don't have to dig too deep to encounter. I treat the Guardian with the same degree of scepticism as I treat the Daily Mail: both papers are produced by peoplewith an agenda to push and copies to sell.

The Guardian's recent fatuous story about George Osborne's so-called 'shenanigans' while an undergraduate was a good case in point: though we got headlines about cocaine binges and crack whores, what the story amounted to was that G.O. had 'known' people who had indluged a bit but no-one came forward with any evidence, photographic or anecdotal, that he'd been up to no good. Really rather pathetic. And the Left would do well to note that, last year, the Guardian played its part in landing the UK with a Tory (if not in name) government.

[amateur51]

Caliban, the flaw in your argument lies in the word 'unjustified' apart from being very selective from what I posted.

I started this thread in a genuine attempt to try and understand what all the fuss was about. I fully accept that perhaps my thread title could be construed as a little childish but, come on, we all know how 'Holier-than-Thou' the Guardian likes to be and so I believe the slight dig valid. Notwithstanding, any adult with an ounce of intelligence would, after reading my opening post understand the question I was seeking an answer to.

This was Am51's first reply. BTS'll be lobbying for the Stasi next Rather childish.

Teamsaint put forward an alternative view and I responded asking for clarification and positing an alternative position.

This was Am51's reply. One word: balderdash!. Childish.

And later, Am51 makes a throwaway comment about 'cover being blown' and when asked for evidence for this statement, slips and slides and throws in another red herring. To be honest, I'd have a more rational discussion with my neighbour's four-year old.

Then all the usual suspects pile in...rather like bullies in a school playground. MrGG with his snide attack on Mr P...Flosshilde with a twee poem. The left always seem to resort to cant and rhetoric. Ah well, was it ever thus.

It would be nice to have a proper discussion without them coming out with the same old...same old.

I wasn't going to do this but this latest provocation requires that I should.

BTS has 'previous' in trying to get me into trouble with the over-worked french frank.She doesn't need it & neither do I. So I'm not going to respond to his taunts but I thank all those who have taken up arms on my behalf

[John Skelton]

I've not been following this bad-tempered discussion too closely, but I think it's worth enlarging on BTS's more general point about the Guardian. Yes, it's holier-than-thou attitude often grates, as does its habit of employing would-be trendy middle-class teenagers to write most of its cultural coverage.

What has any of that to do with a police officer giving a false identity under oath in court?

[amateur51]

I've not been following this bad-tempered discussion too closely, but I think it's worth enlarging on BTS's more general point about the Guardian. Yes, it's holier-than-thou attitude often grates, as does its habit of employing would-be trendy middle-class teenagers to write most of its cultural coverage. There is also a slavish pan-Americanism (albeit 'liberal' America - which is every bit as dangerous as right-wing America, though not so obviously so) that you don't have to dig too deep to encounter. I treat the Guardian with the same degree of scepticism as I treat the Daily Mail: both papers are produced by peopel with an agenda to push and copies to sell.

The Guardian's recent fatuous story about George Osborne's so-called 'shenanigans' while an undergraduate was a good case in point: though we got headlines about cocaine binges and crack whores, what the story amounted to was that G.O. had 'known' people who had indluged a bit but no-one came forward with any evidence, photographic or anecdotal, that he'd been up to no good. Really rather pathetic. And the Left would do well to note that, last year, the Guardian played its part in landing the UK with a Tory (if not in name) government.

Which other British newspaper would you advise then, Mandryka?

[John Skelton]

Perhaps one reason threads like this become "bad-tempered" is that some contributors have little interest in the ostensible topic (use of false identity by a police officer under oath in court) and a great deal of interest in repetitively grinding a favourite axe.

[Mandryka]

Which other British newspaper would you advise then, Mandryka?

None.

I wouldn't recommend people to go to any one source for their news. In order to get an informed view, it is necessary to sample a variety of sources, WHILST BEING AWARE OF THE BIAS OF THOSE SOURCES. By and large, you can sample the DM and the Guardian for the standard right/left gloss, then supplement with BBC Radio 4 (you're best steering clear of all tv news coverage, as telly journalists can play all sorts of subliminal tricks).

John Skelton - as I said, I'd not been following the discussion too closely, but wanted to make a more general point about the Guardian.

[amateur51]

None.

I wouldn't recommend people to go to any one source for their news. In order to get an informed view, it is necessary to sample a variety of sources, WHILST BEING AWARE OF THE BIAS OF THOSE SOURCES. By and large, you can sample the DM and the Guardian for the standard right/left gloss, then supplement with BBC Radio 4 (you're best steering clear of all tv news coverage, as telly journalists can play all sorts of subliminal tricks).

Granny's just said she knows how to suck eggs thankyou, Mandryka

[Mahlerei]

MSG 61

Quite. All too often in recent years police conduct has been tested and found wanting. is this the kind of force we want in this country? The Guardian - or any other paper that focuses on this - is performing a public service. Period.

[John Skelton]

This is exactly my point, John, because it seems to me that there is a balance here that needs to be achieved. On the one hand, you have an undercover operation. We don't know the ins and outs. But it is perfectly possible that this could still be an ongoing operation. By appearing in court and then giving their real name then that blows the ongoing operation. So in that instance I would argue that it was perfectly permissible to give a false name.

We do it for other cases where witnesses etc are referred to as Mr X and their identities concealed.

Referring to someone as X in court with the agreement and knowledge of the court is not the same as a witness or 'defendant' deliberately giving a false name and identity. Not in any sense the same. You are approving of police officers lying under oath in order to mislead the court and the judge. If you find that acceptable then I see no reason why you should find any form of extra-legal activity by the police unacceptable or, ultimately, a total police state unacceptable. Provided, presumably, the people who are the targets of the police's exemption from the law are people you believe should be targets and the state so policed is to your taste.

[John Skelton]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Would I be right in saying that you'd be OK with an undercover officer giving a false name with the agreement and knowledge of the court ? I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that that was what had happened in this case.

No, you wouldn't be right in saying that. Because no court would allow it. They do allow police officers to give evidence as 'Officer X' etc. Whatever my (or your) views about that practice that is not the same as giving a false name and pretending not to be a police officer. Which, if you had read the piece and not been in such a rush to indulge one of your pet hates, you would know. For your assumption is indeed incorrect.

The revelation that a constable who infiltrated protest groups gave false evidence in court under oath triggered demands for a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

The Met detective constable, whose real name is Jim Boyling, infiltrated the direct action group Reclaim the Streets.

He was charged with other activists for public order offences, and in 1997 gave evidence under oath in court using the name Jim Sutton – keeping the identity he had assumed for his undercover work.


In other words, he gave evidence as a defendant not as a police officer, claiming to be someone that he wasn't. In court. Under oath.

Please do not make assumptions such as this.

I take it, then, that now you know what happened and not what you assumed based on not reading The Guardian article you have changed your mind about this and agree that it is unacceptable for a police officer to stand up in court pretending to be someone else altogether, someone else altogether who supposedly has no connection to the police? If not, I'm afraid I think my assumption perfectly fair .

[edit: perhaps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-15385434 will further assist you]

[Flosshilde]

I started this thread in a genuine attempt to try and understand what all the fuss was about.

Is this the language of someone who really wanted to "try and understand what all the fuss was about"? -

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

Wonderfully emotive language....."spies". The Guardian is so full of hypocritical BS. I really cannot see why they are getting so exercised over this...or the lawyers for that matter. He was an undercover policeman, for goodness sake. What's he going to do...give his real name and therefore blow his (and other's) cover? Or would the Guardian prefer that we don't carry out any undercover operations at all?

[Flosshilde]

I take it, then, that now you know what happened and not what you assumed based on not reading The Guardian article you have changed your mind about this and agree that it is unacceptable for a police officer to be sent into court pretending to be someone else altogether, with no connection to the police? If not, I'm afraid I think my assumption perfectly fair .

If bts is really interested in learning I would hope that he learns from John's post, & mine above pointing out that it's the lawyers "getting their knickers in a twist", & that his knee-jerk reaction was entirely mistaken (especially as the story has been reported in a number of other papers, as mentioned in another post). If he still persists in his belief that it is entirely acceptable, morally & legally, for people to give evidence, in court & under oath, under a false identity, then I can only assume that in his protestations that he wanted to learn he is being economical with the truth.

[Flosshilde]

Thank you John for the clarification. The BBC link was helpful.

I agree - the article set out the position very clearly. Will BTS now accept that the Guardian (along with a number of other newspapers, & lawyers) was quite right to 'get its knickers in a twist'?