This is a statement from a
group of people who have considered Mark 'Stone' a friend for
the last decade.
Mark
Mark 'Stone' has been an
undercover police officer from 2000 to at least the end of 2009.
We are unsure whether he is still a serving police officer or
not. His real name is Mark Kennedy. Investigations into this
identity revealed evidence that he has been a police officer,
and a face-to-face confession has confirmed this. Mark claims
that he left the police force in late 2009, and that before
becoming an undercover officer he was a Metropolitan police
constable.
Please pass this information on to anyone who
may have been in contact with Mark in the last decade, both in
the UK and abroad.
This has been posted after he
was confronted by his friends in the activist community and he
confessed details including how long and how much he was paid.
He was/is an undercover cop not just a snitch.
It is a
reminder to always be vigilante and be wary of those who bring
little of their background life into their activism and those
who quickly want to be involved in the most 'full on' things.
However we need to remain open and welcoming to new
people and not get paranoid.
It is a tricky balancing
act to walk and probably nothing we will ever do will prevent
open/semi-open groups being infiltrated but this should not
paralyze us.
Love and solidarity to all those have taken
action and shared their lives alongside this undercover cop.
what an utter utter shit , bought this cunt a pint on a few
occasions...hope his other family disown the fucker as well...Do
you have a conscience mate ?
It's fucking gutting, but sadly it is true. Mark "Flash" Stone
was confronted and admitted that he had been a serving police
officer since 2000. Mark has been around a lot of movements -
Earth First, anti-fascism, Dissent (you may remember him as one
of the organisers of the driving teams at Stirling), was
starting to get into animal rights.Its not a reason to get
paranoid but it is a reason to be careful. He's by no means the
first and he will not be the last. The worst thing he has done
is the deep betrayal to a lot of people and the damage it has
done to very good people. It does not matter how repentant he
might be - fuck him.
Check out www.activistsecurity.org
who have a booklet on identifying and dealing with scum like
this.
This is insane. I personally don't feel compromised as he would
have known about as much as the the police already know - but on
a movement/scene wide level he was in a position to join a lot
of dots and put people in certain places at particular times.
"Another Van Cop" as a comrade remarked to me; we can only
wonder how much has been dropped in terms of security due to the
need for transport.
That said - responding to the
comment about not trusting people who turn up and straight away
want to be on the edge of legality in campaigns - i don't think
anyone would treat their experience of him like that. Fuck,
*look* at the bloke; what did they do, send him from Hendon to
spend five years smoking rollies and living in a tent? Anyone
can be made into a police asset, but an actually Police OFFICER?
fuck me.
I can't see him actually having managed
to separate 2 personalities here - it boggles the mind that he's
spend so long doing basically fuck all, expending so much effort
in terms of debate, slow, dull legwork and campaigning - and
still be thinking "aha, fooling these oh-so dangerous activists
brilliantly..." He must be a deeply conflicted individual.
His life is almost certainly in tatters. Here's to hoping.
Not sure what it was which caused people closer to him on a
daily basis to become suspicious, investigate, and eventually
question him, but he was one of the last people I'd have
suspected. Just shows that our instincts and feelings are not a
reliable guide in this minefield. I feel very sorry for a couple
of people in particular who must be devastated at this news.
He has also been builiding connections with activists on
the European mainland, in particular in Berlin, Austria and
Italy. Possibly also France and Holland. If you have contacts
there please forward this news on.
Love to all those
hurt by this, but it will take more than that to break us.
Being assertive and critical will only make actions for
environmental and social justice stronger. It is also important
to not take these acts of state repression lying down and let
the 'powers that be' know that this is unacceptable and will not
be taken lying down. Big love to one and all hurt by this
We shared a particularly brotherly
experience once... or so I thought. Even though we were only
really mates in passing and never hung out that much, I have
held you in very high regard since that day.
Now I'm
just left thinking that all the conversations we ever had were
phoney, and wondering how on earth you managed to separate your
double life in this way? A person I thought I knew has now
vanished from existence, and is a "never was". It's actually
worse than someone dying, in many ways - I'm really angry as
well as mourning for a lost friend.
I don't know what
your reasons would be, and I don't want to judge you for
whatever you've done. Calling you "fucking scum" etc. is a bit
too superficial really, and if anything, is not angry or
specific enough to make any difference. I expect words like
those will be water off a duck's back to you by now anyway.
Considering that I wasn't even THAT close to you, and how
much this news has affected me tonight, I really feel a deep
sadness for friends who I know were much closer to you than I
was.
I want to live in a world based on honesty, truth,
friendship and mutual respect for ourselves and our planet -
just like everyone you've undoubtedly been involved in betraying
over the years.
People who really care and are trying to
do their little bit to make the world a better place, all
betrayed, and for what purpose?
"Calling you "fucking scum" etc. is a bit too superficial
really, and if anything, is not angry or specific enough to make
any difference"
I'm not trying to make a difference,
just venting my fury at someone I thought was a mate. Those of
us who got pissed with him, went climbing with him, went on
actions with him, considered him a mate (and sometimes more, the
sleazy bastard).... we don't have to defend our rage and
betrayal!
Mark if your reading this, do the honourable thing and expose
the people you were working for, what operations you were
involved in, how much you got paid to fuck up the lives of
everyone that ever cared for you over the past 9 years.
this is so sad. i was also duped by a police informer, some
years ago. someone i called "dad" who i had shared many intense
experiences with both as a campaigner/activist and as a human
being. i don't have anything useful to say i just wanted to send
out huge hugs to all those affected by this. it ripped me apart
on many levels, was deeply traumatic, and even split those of us
who had been the victims of this guy. hope you won't let that
happen to you. much love, rage, respect, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
fuck, and I feel violated, I hate to think about the people who
were involved in organising actions with him that got busted
(yes that included the Iona School Nottingham 114), the deep
friends he had, never mind the people who loved him as a friend
and lover. My sincerest feelings of shared betrayal, and through
that, love and loyalty to all of them (& us) go out.
I
can understand why 'fucking scum' had passed my lips too before
I even read it here. It's actually the depth of feeling that
makes those words really mean something horrible, and that was
the person we once knew. If all his back problems and trips to
the US were fake and excuses to go spend time with his other
family, I think (& hope?) that his phases of depression were
real and a result of the reality of his behaviour.
shocked because confirmed duplicity on this scale is
fundamentally incomprehensible... but not surprised
-
high unearned income (no details of income/work even to those
intimate with him) - turned up out of nowhere and then
suddenly knew everyone all ova europe - no political handle
- just a full-on goodtime boy - but couldn't get a sense of why
he was involved? - long and sometimes sudden absences to
mystery brother abroad - taking personal mobile to actions
and meetings and not turning them off - lack of
accessibility to non-political people in his life eg old
friends, family
said it quite a few times over the years
that things didn't add up with Mark but what do we do when we
have suspicions but no evidence? he fit all the criteria for
undercover, but was involved with some very trustworthy and
amazing people so... until some evidence showed up it was just
bitching and a bad feeling. and we don't want to fall into
patterning and normalising people like the system does, so we
end up in a pretty difficult position when we feel like someone
might be a cop because they don't quite fit the bill (excuse the
pun).
we all have to keep secrets sometimes, but i think
we know when there's something up...
mark, i am sure you
are reading this, and i am really glad to be me and not to be
you. fuck, man, you really fucked over some amazing, beautiful
people and you know it as much as we all do... and i am glad
that i don't have to live with that and i am sorry for you that
you will have to live with that. we make heaven and hell here on
earth - welcome to hell.
Why on earth would mark do the right thing, after all as far as
he is concerned he thought he was doing the right thing in
working for the state..
Our movement is full of spies
and infiltrators, employed by the police, by private
contractors, employed by the energy companies, arms companies,
etc etc.
Now lets be mature about this, and not feel
betrayed when it happens, it is just how it is, we are
subversives and they are not, and that is why they spy on us...
just to add that the guy who spied on us - well i spent entire
weekends with his son, had many dinners and nights at the pub
with his wife, spent time in his home, etc.
point is -
they are hard to spot, are often not the ones you suspect, and
its always massively painful when truth is discovered. someone
is always around to say "i told you so/i knew it" - but its
never helpful.
it's alarming that he got away with it for so long and was so
deep in and so trusted.
On the other, it mustn't induce
a destructive paranoia in which everybody starts to suspect
everybody else. It might be that the powers of darkness are
quite content for him to be outed at this stage, hoping for
exactly that effect. Combined with the deep hurt and sense of
betrayal many people feel, this could rip apart several
important networks and activist scenes -if we let it.
So
let's not let it. There's lessons to be learned from the similar
devastating betrayal in CAAT a few years ago. This is a time to
stay solid, care for each other, keep active, and steer a course
between sensible security and irrational paranoia.
Couldn't agree more with what 'I' said above. This was
blindingly obvious. There was circumstantial evidence longer
than my arm for years and many people had been avoiding working
with him and advising others to do the same. The real lesson
here seems to be to trust your instincts. This police operation
was sloppy as fuck and we fell for it for a decade.
Easy for me to say this as I didn't know the person. But if you
are, quite rightly, feeling betrayed, let down, and infiltrated,
you are probably right to feel that.
But don't let those
feelings stop you from being an activist. A quick search on
Indymedia will show you how many actions do succeed. And we have
to keep doing those actions - even if there might be an
infiltrator.
Most times, there will not be, and we must
keep fighting the good fight. What ever it takes.
with
the amount of pain and suffering you lot have caused, I'm kinda
glad you have been stuffed over. Now you know what it feels like
eh? empty heart in a beautiful world
check your lists, and remove as appropriate. aktivix are already
checking for any with these emails.
whats good is how
much stuff DID happen despite his involvement. scum. the fall
out will take time, but amazing networks of solidarity... love
and rage.
doing tedious admin stuff makes you feel
better, then you get another memory in your head and it feels
like youve just found out all over again.
please can we
stop the insensitive comments based on peoples appearance as a
method to tell their trustworthiness? x
possibly hoping for too much, but really do hope that this
scumbag piece of shit tops himself.. saying that, scumbags like
him dont have much human feelings left so wont be holding my
breath.. wish you all the worst pig! ACAB
Well, this turd has just wasted a decade of his life What a
complete waste of 10 years! One day, he will realise what he has
done, and will regret wasting his very existence for the sake of
the state... for a payslip . . .for the oppressive system that
we live next to.
What a turd, my condolences go out to
those who were close to him and were fooled by him.
What
this does highlight (again) is that dicks like this are among
networks. Part of the furniture unfortunately, bnig bruv is
scared of us and wants the inside scoop. Guess people just need
to play a bit more wisely and be vigilant without being
paranoid.
personally i feel sick. retrospectively things make sense but
theres nothing we can do now eh? maybe just be a bit more suss
about people who are a bit too "flash"...
"There was circumstantial evidence longer than my arm for years
and many people had been avoiding working with him and advising
others to do the same."
All I can say is that none of
that reached me. Something to think about, without starting
witch hunts all over. I guess I trusted the judgement of those
from his area who, for good and understandable reasons, kept
suspicions under their hats. We may need to re-think that.
Don't agree with "trust your instincts". Time after time,
instincts in this area have turned out to be wrong and fingered
an innocent person, sometimes driving them away.
We need
to be more aware of objective information / discrepancies rather
than "instincts". Balancing this with not tearing ourselves
apart in mutual suspicion isn't easy, though. If there's
something about my life / past / actvities which worries people,
I hope they'd raise it with me. I could put their mind at rest.
Flash Mark probably couldn't.
I don't understand how
people can be saying he must now be devastated at his own
treachery, might be going to top himself etc. Why? He obviously
doesn't give a shit to have done this in the first place and
what a great time he's had for 10 years! All the joys of the
scene he's been involved in with none of the fears and risks.
The only person without that sinking feeling in his stomach
before a big action, I guess. It made him seem calm in a crisis
(because it wasn't a crisis for him) so other people tended to
view him as a sort of rock of stability in at least a couple of
panicky situations.
RATCLIFFE TRIAL. Oh yes, this might
well have a bearing. I'm sure its being thought about.
If we are dissenting and significant then we will be
infiltrated. We should bear this in mind and act appropriately
at all times. As for Mark, I honestly believe the greatest harm
he has done is to himself. He may well have got ten years on
pay, dossing around and having a laugh (at our expense) but the
real currency of life is human relationships and he's just lost
a decade's worth - forever. Nobody is so cold and hard that they
can remain unaffected by that.
Although its very natural I dont think any rationalisation of
why he did it will help. We will never know - there is a million
reasons as to why he may have done it but ultimately these dont
matter. The most important thing is that he did it and we now
know - there is one position worse - that he remained at large.
My heart goes out to folk who have been fucked over by this and
I'm sure this is a difficult time but it might be a good use of
energy to salvage what we can in terms of information.
It would be useful for people in the networks he infiltrated to
detail as best they can any information they were able to garner
from him during his confession or otherwise about where these
networks have been compromised.
I know we're still at the shock/grieving stage, but I hope that
somebody's going to look into the possibility of suing the shit
out of somebody. I don't know a whole lot about the law, but
what Mark did seems to me like it ought to be a breach of
people's reasonable expectations of a private life.
I hope anyone who is feeling really down about this will take
heart from all the messages of solidarity above. Don't let this
fuck up fuck you up - nine years of being lied to and decieved
will have a profound effect on those he spent time with. Get
some support if you need it - please don't struggle alone.
www.activist-trauma.net
Obviously, people have gone to some length to spread this via
mail, lists and web. But the article lacks a lot of necessary
information and there's no contact given to get in touch with
the people who wrote it. And please, PLEASE don't ever make a
first publication about a suspected informer on indymedia, where
anyone can publish. Get it published on a reliable source where
publihers can be held responsible for what they are distributing
(morally, not legally).
"My role was to provide intelligence about protests and
demonstrations, particularly those that had the potential to
become violent," he said. "In doing so, the campaigns I was
associated with lost much of their effectiveness, a factor that
ultimately hastened their demise."
His deployment, which
lasted from 1993 to 1997, ended amid fears that his presence and
role within groups protesting about black deaths in police
custody and bungled investigations into racist murders would be
revealed during the public inquiry by Sir William Macpherson
into the death of south London teenager Stephen Lawrence.
His decision to tell his story to the Observer provides the
most detailed account of the shadowy and controversial police
unit that has provided intelligence from within political and
protest movements for more than four decades. He believes the
public should be able to make an informed decision about whether
such covert activities are necessary, given their potential to
curtail legitimate protest movements.
Officer A � with a
long ponytail, angry persona and willingness to be educated in
the finer points of Trotskyist ideology � was never suspected by
those he befriended of being a member of the Special
Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit within Special Branch,
whose job is to prevent violent public disorder on the streets
of the capital. Known as the "hairies" due to the fact that its
members do not have to abide by usual police regulations about
their appearance, the unit consists of 10 full-time undercover
operatives who are given new identities, and provided with
flats, vehicles and "cover" jobs while working in the field for
up to five years at a time.
I can not tell whether the above article is spreading news or
rumours. What I can tell is that if the claims made here are
true then the whole approach of the article doesn't serve the
cause of spreading reliable and important information about
informants within our movements. Whereas if it's just an attempt
to spread rumors about an activist then it's quite easy to see
through - which makes it hard for me to understand why it is
highlighted on the first page. This is anything but a thoughtful
or responsible outing. There has been a long history of counter
information tactics directed against radical movements and
designed to discredit and divide people and structures.
Therefore, any group with even the slightest bit of experience
or reflection on the issue of outings will at least make sure to
heed the following points:
- If you are suspecting
someone of being an informant you have a responsibility (for the
structures that person is in but also for the person itself and
the effect false rumors can have on that persons activism and
life) to start some serious research to either substantiate or
dispel that suspicion. - If you find your suspicions
substantiated by your research you should make the facts public
in order to protect radical movements and stop the person in
question from causing more harm. - Although it may not be
possible or desirable to publish all the information you have
about an informant or how you managed to collect information
about him/her, you should be going to great length to make it
transparent to others that your claims are based on facts. Don't
expect people to just believe you. If we just believe and spread
any claims we are making it very easy for state agencies to
manipulate and damage our activities and tructures. - An
outing should be published or supported by a known group that
can be contacted and held accountable for the published claims
or asked questions. If you are not a known or open group
yourself go find one to support your outing (if your research
was any good, then this shouldn't be difficult since all radical
groups have a self-interest in stopping informants. If you don't
know any known or open groups then local antirepression groups
are a good place to start. They can also give you advice on
dealing with suspicions and doing responsible research). Of
course, any supporting group needs to check the research they
are asked to support and not just embrace it because the people
that made it seem genuine at first glance. - As in any
useful report, make sure you answer the Five W's - Who? (Who was
involved?), What? (What happened (what's the story))? Where?
(Where did it take place?), When? (When did it take place?),
Why? (Why did it happen?), How? (How did it happen?).
Ofcourse anyone reading an outing also has a responsibility. So,
if the supposed outing basically says "This sucker is an
informant. We know. We won't tell you who we are or how to get
in touch. We just know, trust us, believe us. Here's some
photos. Go spread the word. Trust us. We are in control." you
should NOT spread this, rather help to make sure that everyone
in our movements understands why it is irresponsible and
damaging to spread claims that have not been substantiated.
That also goes for indymedia editors. Ok, so anyone can post
on indy and that's good. What I don't understand is why the
indymedia uk team decided to put this on the promoted newswire,
even highlighting it. People, please learn to act responsibly -
don't just rush and promote any information that may seem urgent
because you might find yourself spreading disinformation
designed to destroy people or movements. Or, if the indy team
has reliable information that this article is based on facts
rather than suspicions or sheer libel, then please go and help
the authors write a useful piece of news about it. The way
it is this posting should be removed both from the promoted and
from the open newswire because it may be a serious attempt to
effectively destroy a persons life and activity.
One of the comments on here suggests that we sue him for
damages!
Brilliant, even when they've been utterly
screwed over by the state's secret police, some 'activists'
STILL think it's 'unfair' and that the law can work for them,
instead. Asking the state for permission, complaining about
their agents doing their job, whining about how unfair it is...
The naivety of 'careerist' activists (ie, the quite posh
ones, ex-students etc; the ones who go on to run Greenpeace if
the money is good) is the reason I can't any longer be involved
in anything 'oppositional'. I don't want to go to prison, after
all.
The inability of some people to spot an obvious
copper is truly astounding - until you consider the facts: very
often, 'activists' and cops speak the same language and have
much more in common than, say, a cop and someone living on
benefits on a sink estate, or a trendy 'activist' and a genuine
career criminal. This is why it's so easy to say 'chav' or
'criminal' as an insult, but so difficult to say 'cop bastards'.
Right now some activists are thinking, 'well, maybe we
can forgive him in the end, he's cleary confused, he suffers
from depression', etc etc. Whereas anyone with any real
experience of police brutality (ie, working class experience)
will be wondering why his address hasn't been posted here, so we
can sort him out properly before he gets an new ID and a new
location.
The lesson? Know your enemy, and on activities
that might actually make a difference work only with real
friends in small, small groups, never brag or boast, and be
aware of the braying careerists in your midst - they have NO
IDEA how it works!
The confronters: As SinkLikeAStone said, I want to thank the
people who finally confronted Mark with their
suspicions/fears/facts. It must have taken a LOT of guts and
huge sadness too, to confront an old mate with the one of worse
accusations in activist movements, that of being a police
informer. It's not something you'd do lightly or easily and the
links on here to the guide to dealing with informers is
important reading. It's too easy to go along with what everyone
else believes and to stifle those nagging worries. Thank you for
putting our solidarity and protection before your own desire to
not rock boats and keep friendships.
The betrayed: Just
want to say that, whatever else Mark is, I do believe he had
genuine feelings for those he had meaningful relationships with
in the last 9 years. He's a lying, worthless shit but I don't
believe he could be with such beautiful, wonderful people and
not feel love.
Please notice that Bristol indymedia removed these articles from
their website and instead published the following statement:
Article regarding undercover policeman
The
recent article regarding a certain individual being an
undercover policeman has been removed due to at present their
being no concrete factual evidence to support this claim.
I believe all indymedia portals should do the same and
anyone who helped spread this disinformation should stop and
think before they help to spread rumors next time. Otherwise you
might find yourself doing the police's work yourself - without
even getting paid for it (see
http://shawnewald.info/aia/sec_cointelpro.html
for an overview of typical police counter intelligence tactics
to spread rumors, divide and destroy radical activists and
movements).
While I accept the story is still lacking in a lot of facts and
that is less than desireable, a number of people in/close to
indymedia have spoken to people involved in the exposure and
confirmed it. The gravity of the situation warrants the
promotion of this article. Part of the reason details are
lacking is that there is a lot of work going into to support
those who have been deeply emotionally affected by these
revelations - at the moment they deserve the space to take
stock. However, the bottom line is that Mark has been confronted
and he has admitted he has been a serving copper.
Mark Stone/Kennedy was a close confidant of a senior person of
the Wombles � to an extent that the impression given was that it
was a relationship which was pursued to an almost conspiratorial
degree (hushed conversations in corners).
Stroppy Old
Git said earlier that we should take care jumping to conclusions
upon acting on first instincts with newcomers into the scene (I
paraphrase). While I would agree with this, with Stone, I
suspected him as possibly working for some black ops outfit
associated with rogue operations within the security services,
from almost the first time I met him. Fortunately, not living in
Nottingham, I haven�t had much dealings with him. However, I do
have to say that if they were my first instincts about him, if I
had been involved in any activity where he was involved, I�d
have steered well clear of him (however, I admit this is easier
said than done when you have no evidence � but I would
certainkly have put a word in peoples� ears so as to influence
decision-making steering clear of having him informed of crucial
information).
My information about the Wombles may or
may not be anything, having only been involved with them at the
fringes. What I will say is that the Wombles did a fine job for
a while of escalating anti-terror survelliance in the scene
through deliberately provocative violent insurrectionary
rhetoric, not really backed up with anything part from
concentrating on radical anarchist gesture activist stunts.
Having evolved from a confrontational tactic at large
demonstrations, the group and it�s protaganists saw themselves
as some kind of Greek anarchist style vanguard against
capitalism � a cut and paste reactionary direct-action ethos
from a different cultural context and setting which had no
interactive dynamic with any element of civil society or workers
in London (though it said it did); the no-borders philosophy was
at the heart of the group�s ethos (more so as time went on).
Given the things I've been hearing it sounds like Mark was a
hairy - one of the officers of the special demonstration squad
the special branch offshoot who focus on domestic protest
movements and get away with this sort of long term infiltration.
Hopefully that is him well and truly burned as an officer and we
never see his face again. Given how much upset he has caused
there can be no sympathy for how he is feeling. Truly, he is a
dog of the bosses.
As a total outsider to this scene I'd like to say that whether
this allegation is true or not, either way it highlights serious
weaknesses in activist culture and working methods. Ideally more
evidence should have been presented, but admittedly a verbal
admission on the alleged infiltrator's part could not be
circulated unless it was recorded or filmed. Tricky situation,
but there are some things that should remain obvious to even the
dumbest activist .......
If people had their suspicions
about this guy because he had no apparent source of income but
loads of money, was shifty about letting people meet his family,
etc, then if he was involved in serious stuff, any group worth
their salts would have politely insisted he demonstrate how he
came by his income by showing bank statements, credit card
records, tax bills etc immediately. Any activist worth their
salts would not be offended by such a request, and if he refused
to play ball or the group/s concerned weren't convinced by his
evidence then he should be quietly asked to leave just in case.
In this day and age, if people are passionate about a cause
there's plenty they can do to promote it without joining any
group (it's called the internet), so while an exclusion like
this might come as a blow it doesn't stop anyone working hard
for their beliefs.
Instead it seems a whole network of
activist groups allowed themselves to be FOOLED because this
bloke was a bit of a good-time boy, liked a pint, and could be
relied on to do the dog-work (in this case the driving) that SO
many activists always want someone else to take responsibility
for. Are British activists really that easy to sucker?
I
(very slightly) considered approaching organised Anti-Fascist
group/s a few years back, but made a conscious decision to go
freelance instead, reasoning that if I did get involved you
could safely assume at least 1 person at every meeting would be
Special Branch, and that's assuming the people in the group
could be guaranteed not to gossip or let you down themselves.
Put it this way, SOE agent Noor Inayat Khan was grassed to the
Gestapo by a member of her own group who was jealous of her good
looks (no kidding). Now (as a chubby, middle aged bloke) I'm not
saying I'm as attractive as Noor Khan (hey ho) but in all
seriousness this thread suggests "Anti-Fascism" (presumably
Antifa) has been infiltrated, and I've read stuff on-line
claiming one Anti-Fascist group have been meeting
self-proclaimed "ex"-EDL member Charlie Flowers - and I wonder
who the fuck HE reports what he hears back to? Conclusion - both
of my major misgivings about joining activist groups were proven
right. As for the suggestion that this guy deserves a kicking, I
think we can all see this is posted by either an idiot or a
troll who wants to see the alleged infiltrator's victims jailed
for assault.
whilst i totoally undestand why its signed anonymous, it would
be help for those who don't know who the group are to have some
kind of identity, or maybe the statement can be guranteed by
notts imc?
as i know the people involved i have no such
need, but would deal with some of the speculation.
OK I've been in touch with the people who posted this originally
re: the "How to deal responsibly with outings" comment above,
and they wished to add the following:
The points raised
are valid concerns.
Sorry but those closely involved are
not willing to take on dealing with enquiries - as you can
imagine things are incredibly hard for them right now and
they're just not up for reading through everyone's comments on
the subject.
The situation here is unique as far as we
know because Mark was outed while he was still embedded, and had
been involved not just with one campaign or group but with
networks of close friends on a personal level. There's no rule
book for this, and there's no one group who would have been the
appropriate vehicle for verifying the research.
What
happened was that someone close to Mark became suspicious. They
did a little research and became more suspicious. They asked a
friend to help, did further research together, and became even
MORE suspicious. Both people kept this incredibly quiet, they
didn't even let their partners or closest friends know they were
doing this, precisely to stop any unfounded rumours starting
about someone before they were absolutely sure. But all the
evidence was stacking up in the same direction.
A very
small group of people together did enough research to gather
overwhelming, incontrovertible, documented evidence. Then six
people confronted him and he confessed.
Sorry the
evidence cannot be shared because it would put others at risk,
but if you have doubts then try to contact Mark to ask him
yourself. All known phone numbers aren't working and his profile
disappeared from Facebook early yesterday.
Anyone and
their granny could be made to look suspicious with
circumstantial evidence. Thorough research was done here in the
most covert and sensitive way, leading to A CONFESSION from
Mark. This really is not rumour, much as we wish it was.
Others can help by passing on only ACCURATE information and
avoiding speculation, which is what I'm trying to do here.
If a lot of people from within and around indymedia could
support these claims then a statement of the indy team should by
now be visible on the start page - and not a clear statement by
indymedia Bristol that the articles were taken down due to the
lack of any evidence to confirm these claims.
If you
care about people who were close to the supposed informer then
you shouldn't go around publishing anonymous rumors like this in
the first place.
Even if you have no time to put more
effort into this, you should be making sure that it is not
published in a way that can not possibly be trusted (anonymous
on indymedia and without a contact possibilty). If your claims
are true and your research was thorough, then you shouldn't have
a hard time to find supporting groups who will help you both
with the emotional and the political side of things. The outing
should be published in their name or with their support on their
website or some other publication that outsiders can trust not
to be fake (unlike an indymedia article).
If you are
real (and you're not making it easy to believe you are), then
what you are doing now is hurting radical activism in more than
one sense. If your claims are true then the way you are going
about this is not helping to remove a potentially dangerous
individual from our structures because anyone can see that at
the moment all of this is just a matter of "believe it or not".
If you want people to believe something, join a religious
movement. Otherwise, present facts and groups that can testify
your research. Also, think: You want people to just believe you
although you are providing absolutely nothing to substantiate
your claims of having done good research. Now if everyone went
about outings like this, no-one would be able to tell whose
claims are genuine and whose are preposterous. That's why
outings need to be transperent, based on evidence and be backed
up by accountable groups.
Currently you are creating a
precedent which, if copied by others, can be absolutely
destructive for all radical movements. It has been in the past,
it is in the present and it will be in the future.
You start your comment with "As a total outsider to this scene"
and state that you've never gotten involved with any anti
fascist group*. So its a bit rich that you state that people
should have been able to see through it. How exactly do you know
whether you would be any better at identifying infiltrators, if
you've never even put yourself in the position of working with a
group? You're throwing criticism around where you've no clue.
You've no idea what it might be like to be in the position of
the people who've been involved with this person. You've nothing
constructive to say, so why say it, if you've any of the same
goals as the "scene" you choose to remain outside of?
(*I've no issue with that, by the way, and can see your
reasoning for making that choice.)
Most of what you are saying sounds reasonable. And of course the
people who did the research shouldn't have to be the same people
who will now "spread the word". And of course it may not be
possible to disclose all information or research procedures (I
already said that in my first comment).
But that is
precisely the reason why known, accountable, trusted groups are
needed to support claims as these, otherwise they are not only
useless but dangerous.
You say that the current
situation is "unique" because the person in question was
involved in a number of campaings, groups and networks of
friends. Actually, where I'm from that has been the case with
quite a few people who were outed as informers or even police or
secret service employees. I don't find this unusual. This
doesn't mean that every group the person was involved in has to
co-author an outing. What it does mean is that there are a
number of groups and people who have a vested interest in
checking the research and getting this information out. So it
shouldn't be at all difficult to approach one of those groups,
have them check the material and ask them to co-author or
support the outing and publish it on their website, their
newspaper etc. So why should none of these groups be appropriate
"for verifying the research" ? Maybe none of them had insight
into all activities, but then they could at least testify what
they can support from their perspective and wether the research
seems "overwhelming, incontrovertible, documented" to them (as
you said it is).
Unless you want people to just believe
anything claimed by anyone, that is the only responsible way to
go about an outing and I do not see any way around it. An
anonymous posting on indymedia is certainly no use (even a
non-anonymous posting on indymedia since noone can tell whether
those poting are who they claim to be).
So please, get
in touch with groups who have an interest in checking this, have
them check the material at hand and have them write a statement
or co-operatively write a statement and publish it somewhere
where its not as easy to spread rumors and post fakes as
indymedia.
The situation here is unique as far
as we know because Mark was outed while he was still embedded,
and had been involved not just with one campaign or group but
with networks of close friends on a personal level. There's no
rule book for this, and there's no one group who would have been
the appropriate vehicle for verifying the research.
What
happened was that someone close to Mark became suspicious. They
did a little research and became more suspicious. They asked a
friend to help, did further research together, and became even
MORE suspicious. Both people kept this incredibly quiet, they
didn't even let their partners or closest friends know they were
doing this, precisely to stop any unfounded rumours starting
about someone before they were absolutely sure. But all the
evidence was stacking up in the same direction.
A very
small group of people together did enough research to gather
overwhelming, incontrovertible, documented evidence. Then six
people confronted him and he confessed.
'Commonsense' - normally I'd fully agree with you, but I have to
second the account given in "Further Info". In this case, I've
been speaking to people who have been caught up in this and
right now the concern is for protecting them as much as
possible. I have dealt with infiltrators before, helping expose
them as well as contributing to the activist security pamphlet
on this (have heard that there should be a load at the bookfair
tomorrow). However, in my judgment, at the moment the balance
should be with protecting the people who are traumatized and
physically shattered by what they have just gone through. This
is not a "run of the mill" outing, and while it has not been
ideal situation, I think that they have handled it well all
considering. Anyone who has spoken to people involved in the
McLibel infiltration or the Rob Gilchrist infiltration in New
Zealand which bears remarkable similarities to this one knows
how raw a situation is and that there are competing issues that
are near impossible to balance.
A series of phone calls
happened yesterday to inform people and groups and to get the
message out. Sorry that this could not be done as transparently
as people would like, but this is why the story is not simply
being treated as disinfo. Its been barely 24 hours before all
this started to kick off - give people a chance, and if people
really need to know more then I find it hard to believe that our
networks are not so large that we cannot find people who will
corroborate this story. Once more information can be release,
then it will be.
Right now, my support remains with the
wonderful people who took on this headfuck of an issue.
If you have any concerns about the "senior person" from the
wombles then we will all be down at the Bookfair so please lets
put a name to your face rather than hiding behind indymedia.
** "You start your comment with "As a total outsider to this
scene" and state that you've never gotten involved with any anti
fascist group. So its a bit rich that you state that people
should have been able to see through it. How exactly do you know
whether you would be any better at identifying infiltrators?"
I did not claim I'd be any better at spotting
infiltrators, but (with respect) yours is a non-point however,
as people who say they worked with this guy for years have
already said they suspected he was an infiltrator. Since they'd
already spotted aspects of his behaviour that raised suspicions,
and since their concerns seem to have been based on sound
reasoning, logically they should have acted on those concerns.
Picking me up on whether I would have done better is irrelevant
- the point is that if Anti-Fascist groups handled this sort of
thing better then they'd be more successful at earning the trust
of outsiders, on which basis I'd argue they'd be more
successful, period
** "You're throwing criticism around
where you've no clue"
I'm throwing criticism on the
basis of clues posted here by people who say they knew this guy
for years
** "You've nothing constructive to say, so why
say it"?
I have got something constructive to say, the
problem is you don't seem to have fully understood it. Criticism
is always constructive, even if (unlike mine) it was intended to
be hostile. Like I said, I'm an outsider, so it makes no odds to
me personally, but if you're in an active Anti-Fascist group
then it's your group/s that need to learn from this kind of
experience. If the message that goes out to the world is that
your groups can be easily suckered then don't be surprised if
people are reluctant to join your groups. In that respect, don't
shoot the messenger (and please go away and think about that
before posting any hasty response)
Totally appreciate your concerns, commonsense, and we're hoping
that the Indymedia UK collective may become the "trusted group"
to verify this story. Nottingham Indymedia are also doing
something on this as Mark was there a lot and they will be able
to confirm the story through trusted sources.
I have
asked if someone from Bristol Indymedia could contact me, but no
reply yet.
From the OUTSIDE this must look completely
unverified, but this really wouldn't have got this far if
information had not been backed up with large numbers of phone
calls behind the scenes from people who were known and trusted.
It's hard at this point to see what more we can do since
the actual documents cannot be published without putting
innocent parties at risk.
We're working on it. Helpful,
SENSITIVE suggestions welcome.
Just a point of clarification: the Bristol IndyMedia Collective
have hidden a couple of articles of a similar nature to this
one. We're reviewing the situation, and trying to get more
information about these allegations. Depending on what happens
the articles may or may not be reinstated.
...I've known Mark for about 7 years, treated him as a friend
and comrade, drank with him and had a laugh with him, he bought
my baby little jumpsuits when he was born and we stayed on his
boat in May.
Water off a duck's back, fuck him. I've got
friends and comrades that will be with me to the grave, this
pussy will find that his pal's in the met would stab their
granny if they thought a promotion was in it.
It may not be the time to mention it but if he has been 'under'
for 9 years he will have introduced others once he had
established his credibility. This tactic was mentioned in the
BBC documentary.
I'm not one of those demanding documentary evidence etc.
It may be impossible to produce that, as has been said,
without putting other people at risk. Any chance of "redacting"
it (I hate that word, it's normally a guilty bureaucrat or
evasive politician's euphemism) so that the innocent are
protected but the doubters can be satisfied?
To Commonsense: You raised some excellent points, one of them
being that an outing can be a tool to divide us.
But
since that's true, then it follows that there isn't a way which
would be "the only responsible way to go about an outing" as you
claim. Because as soon as that way is used, it becomes available
to the cops to use for a deliberately false outing.
In
this light, your assertion that "...there are a number of groups
and people who have a vested interest in checking the research
and getting this information out", takes on a whole new meaning,
does it not?
I agree that a statement on indymedia isn't
inherently 'secure' in the sense of 'verifiable', but why would
I believe one from a group? Is it telling that you don't list
any specific groups - is this because in naming them they'd
become less secure?
I'm not disagreeing with your main
point. I'm just disagreeing with the slightly strident tone
which started to gain ground in your posts, an assumption that
it should be obvious to everyone what to do - for example when
you say:
"...it shouldn't be at all difficult to
approach one of those groups, have them check the material and
ask them to co-author or support the outing and publish it on
their website, their newspaper etc. ... Unless you want people
to just believe anything claimed by anyone, that is the only
responsible way to go about an outing and I do not see any way
around it."
I hope that I've respectfully pointed out a
downside to your suggestion, even if not a 'way around it'.
It seems to me that wherever we hear an allegation, or have
suspicions, we are always going to have a delicate balance to
strike: each of us needs to reserve judgement - 'it might not be
true' - while exercising caution - 'how can I protect myself and
others in case it IS true?'. Usually, it seems to me, we just
have to live with, and act on, both - simultaneously. As
difficult as it is necessary.
Meanwhile, it's also worth
remembering that there are other ways that people can be
untrustworthy (i.e. other than being cops) and yet end up
involved. Which means that sometimes people can do shit things
when they are otherwise a respected activist, and sometimes
false allegations can flare up against people who, while not
being perfect, end up as scapegoats. Discussions on how to act
responsibly around these situations have been going on in
Bristol for a number of reasons, which might be one context for
why BIM pulled the story. But it's absolutely not exclusive to
there, nor will it ever stop being an issue everywhere.
Massive love and solidarity for those who have had to take
extremely difficult action on this. Well done and thank you for
your courage. Thank you too to those who have posted wise
comments on this site about not letting these realities destroy
the good things, not least our courage to love as well as
confront. Sad, sad days; onwards in hope.
Stroppyoldgit - thanks for the suggestion, we are considering
doing that and are still undecided. We think that it might just
start speculation about the possibility of the documents having
been photoshopped (altered/forged), which would just lead to
more rounds of "yes it is/no it isn't".
Right now it
would also mean more work for the people most closely involved,
so holding fire until they've had a chance to at least get some
sleep.
Best "proof" right now seems to be that he has
disappeared, and if people follow their own chains of trusted
people then they may be able to verify that for themselves.
Here you are Stone or Kennedy, this is what you will go
through and I hope your family suffers so that it brings home to
you what a low-life you are, you slimy conniving oiece of shit.
You spent years being false and I hope your 30 pieces of
silver are enough to buy the rope when you decide to follow the
example of Judas.
And I'm sure your reading this, once a
Secret Policeman, always a Secret Policeman.
...and yes, he did treat the place like a hotel, spending most
of his time working in London. Yes, we did take the piss out of
him over it.
Now we know why.
Those who say on
here that they suspected him all along should bear in mind that
their comments might hurt and upset those who thought that Mark
was annoying and smug at times, but had no such suspicions.
Basically, there's no point in sneering after the event. We
need to stick together as a community, move on and learn from
this.
As long as there is oppression and injustice, people will always
be motivated to resist it. One undercover cop won't change that.
There are more of us than there are of them.
If we want to learn from this incident this is a story about
another recently 'outed' infiltrator whom we can learn from.
Brendon Darby is a different man in a very different country.
The amount of violence he used and his extremely disruptive
behaviour would not have been possible in UK activism I think.
However there are some aspects of Darby's story which may have
been similar. Mark had quite a bit of personal charisma and
charm for example. http://breakallchains.blogspot.com/2010/03/lisa-fithian-fbi-informant-brandon.html
after seeing mark at various action camps, and taking him up on
many offers to drive things all over the place, i had trusted
him pretty much. he told me he had a crew ready to drive all
over europe to do direct action, especially to confront nazis
with serious action. i thought he was opening the doors to doing
serious direct and/or violent actions. i never took him up on
the idea.
another time after a night out of really
getting wasted drunk, he wanted to go with me to a brothel. i
found that a bit surprising for such a "pc" and pro-feminist
guy. maybe his contact with me tapered off after i turned him
down on that offer.
another odd thing about him was that
although he often talked of radical action (he actually did do a
lot, including in Iceland), he never wanted to use pgp or
encrytion.
another time, he told me he was being
followed all over by cops. was this to make me paranoid? or was
it to check out my reaction?
what we need to do is just
be aware that this kind of thing will always happen. i never
trust anyone 100%. at the same time, we need to keep going, and
not be afraid because of shit like this.
Why are you bringing our names into this and why say that about
Charlie?
Whatever the ins and outs of Mark Stone being a
cop which hasn't been proved on here I think it's wrong to
suggest that Charlie Flowers is some kind of informant or
policeman. The meet between Camden Antifash and Charlie Flowers
was productive in keeping things peaceful in Camden. People have
opposing views on some things and agree on some things. The
people that have supported Camden Antifash are from mixed
backgrounds, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists White, Black, Brown
etc. We all agree that racism is wrong and we also agree that
racist or religious extremism is damaging and needs to be
stopped. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic and it
doesn't make someone racist. There are younger people linked to
Camden Antifash of different racial backgrounds and immigrant
backgrounds who are patriotic about being English or whatever
and are also proud of being Jewish or Muslim etc. When people
get to meet they can find that they have things in commonrather
than not.
Charlie Flowers did a fine job of stopping a
potentially stupid situation from occurring in Camden. He is not
the fucking police and neither are we. If people have something
to say to any of us then meet and talk to us.
It's a bit unfortunate this broke 2 days before @ Bookfair. That
event, for all it's merits, can be to a common or garden rumour
mill as a concrete crusher is to wee pepper grinder.
All
efforts to keep the bollocks within bounds, avoid mad paranoia
and ill-founded accusations, and limit the inevitable discussion
to the few facts we know will be good work done.
After
that, we can set about demolishing the olympic stadium with a
toothpick.
what has been written on several pages, in indymedia comments
and on lists by now has persuaded me that this outing is
genuine. I hope that my later comments did not offend those
directly affected or seem as if I was not in solidarity with
them. I also agree with "TrickyBalance" that my comments became
increasingly strident and that this isn't at all helpful. I was
indeed quite angry at what appeared to me as an unjustifiable
lax handling of the responsibilities connected with an outing,
and the first answers which I did notice were very thoughtful
but seemed to me to be evading some points I brought up which
made me even more angry. As someone who is not involved it
should have been me who could have been expected to act more
calmly. I am afraid my anger about how easily rumors are often
spread within our structures and how destructive this can be for
our movements and many individuals involved got the better of
me. Thanks to everyone who answered my comments and remained
calm (and especially to "FTP" and "trusted activist" for your
commitment to clarify the situation.
In my first, still
calm comment I tried to bring up a number of tips for outings
that I continue to believe are important to bear in mind when
dealing with such a situation.
One of the main ones
being that when publishing an outing it is important to make as
much of your research methods and evidence transparent as seems
possible(!), publish it in a medium that is not easily
manipulated and - if you are not one yourself - get known,
trusted and reachable groups to support your claims after having
checked the evidence. All of these points are important to
establish some kind credibility and accountability so that those
of us who were not directly involved in the events can see that
those publishing the outing have tried what they could to
dispell notions of fake or counter information or manipulation.
While I do think trust is an important (and underestimated)
quality in emancipatory movements lets not expect people to
simply take our word for everything - especially if its
something as controversial, difficult and historically abused as
an outing.
I agree with "TrickyBalance" that confronted
with an outing we will always have to strike a balance between
the possibility that it is a fake and the necessity to protect
ourselves, our friends and structures. I too believe that it
will hardly ever be possible to dispell all and provide 100%
certainty and transparency for outsiders. However, I do believe
that there are levels of certainty and that radical emancipatory
movements we should attempt to reach the highest possible
degree. Of course I can not (and will not) be absolutely sure
that a statement issued by a known group or organisation has a
higher validy than an anonymous posting on indymedia, BUT it
will make it much easier for me to judge whether to give a
statement the benefit of the doubt (i.e. because known groups
can be held accountable, have a reputation to lose, will have
good or bad references in their past etc.). I maintain that it
would have greatly helped if this had been considered from the
beginning. Btw: I did not list any specific groups because I am
reading and writing from germany, am not directly involved in
the events surrounding the outing and in the british political
"scene" and yes, because I believe the research group would know
best which groups to approach. However, as I said (at least in
germany) if you don't know who else to approach, there is always
anti repression structures who consider it part of their
activity to support people and groups having to deal with
spy/informer suspicions.
Also, I didn't mean to suggest
that everything should be perfectly obvious in every case. In
every outing there will be individual and specific difficulties
to tackle for which you'll find no textbook references. However,
I am positive that we can learn from the past and draw
conclusions which will be of general use in the future such as
those in the last paragraph. And I am also positive that not
every strategy we publish can be turned against us. I.e. if we
make it "a rule" that outings should be published or backed up
by accountable groups this will still not make it easier for
state agencies to spread fake accusations but harder because it
will mean that they have to infiltrate a group, present material
to it and convice it of its claims before they will be published
whereas rumors wouldn't get them anywhere. I agree with you that
this should be an ongoing debate in which we will never find a
perfect solution but we should try our best to stop rumors and
false accusations and help others who have good reasons to not
just take anyones word believe us when we know that what we are
trying to get accross is the truth. In this respect I believe
that indymedia Bristol acted very responsible by taking the
outing articles off their site until they had verification of
the claims by trusted sources.
Finally, we are not
perfect and we need not try to appear so. We will continue to
make mistakes and that's ok. What made me angry wasn't the fact
that things hadn't gone according to "textbook" but that for
quite a while it seemed to me that the problematic side of any
outing, the possibilty that accusations can be part of a counter
information strategy, was dealt with very lightheartedly and
that central points were not addressed by those who wrote
otherwise thoughtful comments. After dicussing with you people I
no longer have this impression
Ok, 'nuff said. Love and
solidarity to everyone effected or distressed by these findings.
Find comfort in your friends, courage in the depth of your
relationships and the passion of our struggles.
As far as a silver lining goes, deployment of an
undercover officer, as opposed to just an informer, represents a
significant use of assets by the police.
There are
unlikely to be two of these chaps in close proximity, so if you
were infiltrated by Mark, rejoice! You are as near certain as
you can be that you have not been infiltrated any further, so
put the paranoia behind out and go and do something great.
before i got active i knew a nice person who sometime later
became a cop.
At my first jaunt into direct action, i
saw them fleetingly at eco village g8 scotland and thought no it
can't be.... . it has troubled me since. i really hope and wish
they are not 'deep' and fucking up friends in groups.
what can we do about this? as a 'newby' i did feel a little
excluded and understood the need for security but have had to
make the call to take the risk in afinity actions. rather get
fucked up trusting than parinoid do nothing.
"What happened was that someone close to Mark became suspicious.
They did a little research and became more suspicious. They
asked a friend to help, did further research together, and
became even MORE suspicious. Both people kept this incredibly
quiet, they didn't even let their partners or closest friends
know they were doing this, precisely to stop any unfounded
rumours starting about someone before they were absolutely sure.
But all the evidence was stacking up in the same direction.
A very small group of people together did enough research to
gather overwhelming, incontrovertible, documented evidence. Then
six people confronted him and he confessed."
I think
that by law, any undercover cop must admit that they are a
police officer when asked that question directly. So, um, why
didn't you just ask him in the first place?
This might
sound like a dumb question to ask but given that there are
pamphlets, manuals etc. being written about how to out an
undercover cop, it would seem like a more direct way to go about
things. If it works.
You've been watching too many US cop shows! Theres way too many
smart arses on this thread. Why don't those of you who didn't
even know this guy just butt out for a while?
We are in the business of convincing people of the rightness of
our causes. Perhaps we succeeded with Mark. He does claim, he
stopped being a cop in 2009. If so, why would he hang around
doing very useful work for us? He's being doing undercover work
for a decade. If he did become convinced over to our side, it
would be a very difficult and dangerous process, fully
converting himself. That would be from both sides of the double
game he was playing. He couldnt just turn round to his pay
masters and say, "Hey, Im leaving you lot and joining the
anarchists". They would break him, just like they broke David
Shayler. Could he just turn to us and say, "Hey, Ive been an
undercover cop for 10 years, snitching on you, but Ive changed
now. Love me."? How could he believe we would ever forgive him
or trust him again. I hardly knew him at all, but if I was one
of his friends, as well as feeling furious, hurt and stupid, Id
be very worried about him now. We are thin enough on the
ground as it is. If he really has been converted we shouldnt
lose him because of past misdemeanors. One thing is for sure, if
he does come back to us, he will be under constant scrutiny.
As People who had him popping up in our structures the last few
years around Europe might be glad the read some more *factual*
information. Do you have any? Was this miserable guy questioned,
and if so what were his answers? What was his task? Who was he
working for? Was he giving detailed information on every action
he joined, and if so how and to whom? How was this while abroad
(G8 Heiligendmm, for one!) This kind of information would be
helpful to us to understand the situation, to repair damage,
warn people etc.
Keep your silly ridiculous thoughts to yourself. The guy who I
have known and worked with on numerous actions for eight years
is an undercover pig and your suggesting we welcome him back
with open arms if he shows forgiveness, well fuck you for your
blatant ignorance to the harm he has caused for a decade. I
think you are on the wrong website and should perhaps FUCK OFF..
Juniper Berry writes above , �I think that by law, any
undercover cop must admit that they are a police officer when
asked that question directly. So, um, why didn't you just ask
him in the first place�
Perhaps the reason is that
nobody knew that an undercover cop had to admit to be being a
police officer if asked directly. Are you sure that is the case
,JB ? If it is true , left wing groups should make it a point to
formally ask anybody wanting to join their organisation[s]
whether or not he or she is a police officer.
As I understand it, anything further that he might have said was
considered so unreliable that it's really not useful to anyone,
sorry. Maybe worth thinking about whether he introduced you to
anyone else, but beyond that I don't think there's any further
info that wasn't later contradicted or obviously untrue.
Following a meeting at the anarchist bookfair where the evidence
was explained and discussed in detail the following groups are
convinced enough to endorse the original statement regarding
Mark Stone/Kenndy
scottish activist legal project
now or never nottingham indymedia anarchist teapot
NETCU watch www.netcu.wordpress.com Activist security.org
CEntral Animal Liberation Intelligence Unit Veggies
uk actionmedics
@ 22.10.2010 18:51 - The wiki to the name you signed that
animated GIF with should be quite intructive for the readers of
this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Voigt
Are you suggesting that the leadership of the German
nazi party is choking on their popcorn over this report of human
trauma? Apparently the news have not yet spread to each and
every island along European shores that now for more than a
decade the German supreme court has unsuccessfully been trying
to ban it because there are more undercover agents in the
leadership than selfmade nazis. It is an open secret that the
main purpose of the current nazi party is to provide secret
police with an excuse for the vast expenses it is extorting from
the public budget. Without that you would be broke already, so
your schadenfreude towards neighbouring countries
nonwithstanding, the grain of truth which should be added to
that is if there ever was such a thing as a theme park for evil
infiltrators it clearly is the NPD/VS!
Yes, I wasn't asking to pass on what he told you, of course that
would need to be checked first, but you must know more than what
is given to us now, you say people have done research, so then
let us know what came out of that. who was he working for, what
kind of info was he passing on, how, to whom, also abroad, etc?
Is anyone working on trying to make a full overview of that kind
of information? If so, where can we find that? A report from the
meeting on the a-bookfair?
I agree with the previous poster . At least an outline of the
scope of Stone's activities should be possible without
jeopardizing legitimate concerns about getting the facts
straight before releasing a report. .Campaigns need to be
alerted about possible breaches of security.
There was a
post to indymedia ireland today from somebody who said that
Stone/Kennedy had "visited Ireland on a couple of occasions".
The post didn't say whether Stone was involved with any
campaigns while in Ireland ,but that was the poster's
implication I thought
Bit confused at the people asking for more info above.
"who was he working for," - The police. That's what this article
is about. "what kind of info was he passing on," - Info
about activists. That's what this article is about. "how," -
We may never know, but does 'how' matter? The fact that info was
being passed on is the main thing. "to whom," - The police.
That's what this article is about. "also abroad," - No
reason why not. "etc?" - You might need to be more specific.
"Stone/Kennedy had "visited Ireland on a couple of
occasions". The post didn't say whether Stone was involved with
any campaigns" - I think that's a question for people running
campaigns in Ireland to answer.
It strikes me that the
point of the original article was to alert activists that Mark
S/K was a proven informer. It was not to find out everything
that he was involved in. That is the task of individual groups
now armed with the knowledge of his betrayal.
Please stop shouting at people asking for more info like they
are stupid children. If you think details don't matter in these
cases, fine, go along randomly fighting 'the system' (and 'the
police'). I was hoping to hear some details so to lear lessons
about which institutions are doing what exactly, what
instructions do they give, how is the information transmitted
etc. In fact the only question was (and this could easily be
answered: are people seriously investigating this case and will
they come with some reporting or someting (and if so where and
when)? That's not too difficult, is it?
"I think that by law, any undercover cop must admit that they
are a police officer when asked that question directly. So, um,
why didn't you just ask him in the first place? "
What
law? This is bollocks-round-a-fire legalism. If you can cite the
statute or authority, fine. If not, there is no point in
mentioning it.
If there is such a law, the police will,
of course, obey it, won't they? And I'm the Archbishop of
Canterbury, so I should know.
As for "how many people
are in prison because of this guy". Probably none. Information
to make arrests and get convictions is not the only purpose of
infiltration, and would usually be by a much lower (and cheaper)
level of infiltration than this. It's often impossible without
the source being sussed and expended. Information for, and
implementation of, political, social, tactical or even strategic
disruption is the more likely object of this sort of deep
infiltration.
The people dealing with this affair are undergoing a massive
traumatic occasion that of course they are aware has huge
implications not least for themselves but for the wider
movement. Just be patient on more info and evaluation. Expecting
a cohesive, packaged answer to how, why and who at this present
moment is just being insensitive. This affair is less than a
week old - give everyone time to come to terms with at least the
most basic outing of a cop in their midst before they can even
begin to put further practical actions into effect.
e-mail: 
Homepage:
