I can't forgive Mark Kennedy's betrayal of activists
Emily Apple | 11.01.2011 14:37 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Repression | Sheffield | World
Along with many others, I was sickened when I discovered that the man I knew as a fellow activist, Mark Kennedy, was in fact an undercover police officer who had been spying on us since 2003. Yet my feelings were nothing compared with those who were close to him. The betrayal and loss they are feeling is a real grief – the equivalent of someone you love dying. I went through this myself a few years ago when one of my best friends, Martin Hogbin, was exposed as a BAE spy. I denied the facts for a long time simply because the truth was too difficult. I still miss my friend, miss the good times, miss him seeing my son grow up; I don't think this feeling will ever go away.
Unfortunately, this is something those of us labelled domestic extremists have to deal with. We know our movements are routinely infiltrated; it's more a question of "who" than "if". This awareness of betrayal, and suspicion of our fellow activists, is always with us. Indeed, part of the disruption that undercover operatives cause is making people doubt each other and their motivations. Most activists have at some point discussed those they suspect in their midst. Often suspicions are unfounded and only shared among close friends, but this paranoia effectively disrupts protest planning.
I knew Kennedy from gatherings and protests – we were both involved in environmental actions, anti-fascism and international mobilisations. He wasn't a close friend, but a familiar face I knew and trusted. The last time I saw him was at the Earth First gathering in August when he came to a meeting about how to best oppose the English Defence League (EDL) in Bradford. He was vocal there but, in retrospect, very keen on diverting the discussion away from mass mobilisation in the city centre and concentrating on targeting the coaches the EDL would be using.
It has already been pointed out that this could be seen as provocation. Kennedy was openly and actively promoting illegal activity – suggesting people either damage or obstruct the vehicles. However, I believe his motives went beyond provocation. The police were most afraid of a major public order incident in Bradford. By suggesting the coaches, Kennedy had an ideal way of not losing face in terms of action, at the same time as trying to keep people away from the city centre.
This manipulation and disruption of protest is the undercover operatives' main focus, and defines the overall strategy of protest policing operations. For example, overt police surveillance tactics at Kingsnorth – carried out by their forward intelligence team – were praised in a National Policing Improvement Agency report for providing "good intelligence and disruption". Subtle manipulation ensures an action is implemented in a way that suits the policing agenda without people feeling their actions have been compromised.
Disruption can take many forms, from asking questions about whether a group has the capability to carry out their plans, and thereby undermining confidence, to spreading rumours and smears about key activists in order to cause dissent within and between groups. These are all tried and tested methods, and in the words of Officer A, who admitted his role as a "hairy" for the Special Demonstration Squad in the Observer last year: "Once the SDS get into an organisation, it is effectively finished."
Since being exposed, Kennedy has said he's sorry, and has acknowledged that what he did was "really wrong". But saying sorry does not repair the lives he has wrecked, help the people he has grassed up, or reinvent the actions he jeopardised and manipulated. Personally, I read his statement as nothing more than an attempt to deflect the anger rightly directed towards him, and add to the confusion he has already caused. Nor is there any proof that he was really prepared to assist the protesters who faced charges of conspiracy to commit trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, as he has since claimed. Meanwhile, Kennedy's alleged remorse dominates the media coverage when we should be exploring how the deep and complex anti-activist policing operation works, and what can be done to stop it.
The implications of this case are endless. For those closest to Kennedy, the questions will never be answered. They will always wonder about him, just as I will always wonder about Martin, always doubt my memories, question what, if anything, about our friendship was genuine. None of us will ever know what information was passed on, or which actions were compromised. We can spend endless hours speculating, but there will never be closure.
But one thing is certain: Kennedy was not alone, and there will be many more revelations of this kind over the coming years. With militant action building on the streets, the police will be seeking to infiltrate and disrupt prominent groups in any way they can. However, the Kennedy affair has also shown the strength of activists' support networks. We have been able to offer care and solidarity to those most affected: if we can maintain this, we will continue to be strong.
Emily Apple
Homepage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-policeman-activist/print
Comments
Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments
Somebody needs to look at the NPIOU!
11.01.2011 15:00
I wouldn't mind if they were any good but they just seem to take all the info we have and give sweet f a.
Whistleblower
So much for his remorse
11.01.2011 15:12
Antifascist
Hindsight isn't always right
11.01.2011 17:01
Yes, but there is obviously no alternative, it just has to be done rationally and without paranoia. Sensible checks eliminate paranoia.
"By suggesting the coaches, Kennedy had an ideal way of not losing face in terms of action, at the same time as trying to keep people away from the city centre."
Yes, but a few activists taking out the coaches is also a good tactic, I think you are reading too much into this point, at least from what you've written.
"Disruption can take many forms, from asking questions about whether a group has the capability to carry out their plans, and thereby undermining confidence"
Again, it is perfectly sensible for activists to rationally assess if their targets are achieveable and you are probably reading too much into this. This is the paranoia you are rightly warning others about, and you seem to be over-examining the past now you have been burned.
I never heard of Mark before this but I have dealt with other infiltrators and from afar my analysis is maybe superficial, but it seems to me that surely the thing that should have raised concerns is the fact he had plenty of cash and travelled abroad constantly. In my experience there is too much wishful thinking when dealing with activists that seem too good to be true, like because they have the equipment you need then they avoid normal scrutiny.
If you are doing any sort of activism then you shouldn't be offended if people question this sort of unusual behaviour and carry out basic background checks. Maybe Antifascist can confirm what I've read elsewhere, that home visits are part of their standard procedure, maybe they shouldn't comment here though. Some genuine activists may be put off by this level of validation but it is better to lose one or two genuine activists than risk such an easy infiltration. I think part of the problem is that once someone has been accepted into one group and becomes well known then other groups take them at face value and assume they are beyond reproach. Every group should question everyone they deal with, and be upfront about that.
Anyway, I've alot more to say on the subject but really don't think this is the place or time.
from afar
well said
11.01.2011 22:06
@rchie
Not alone
11.01.2011 22:29
The worst that can happen in a operation like this, is that the infiltrator gets 'found' out. It puts lives in danger, embarrases the state and the protection program is seriously expensive.
so
Serious safety procedures are taken into account.
One is that the security services never act upon 'intel' if it comes from one source alone. To avoid the risk that the source gets traced back.
So in important missions there are always two infiltrators or informants active. More often than not they don't know who the other(s) are.
It is highly unlikely that 'Flash' is working for another firm or for another service. Way to risky. I wouldn't be surpriced that after being blackmailed to keep his mouth shut, he is rendered into the 'protection program'. A program that ensures you're never seen again. Who knows what that really means.
Stockholm Syndrome guy
acab
12.01.2011 04:12
concerned
shut the fuck up
12.01.2011 07:52
now
about silence
12.01.2011 11:14
mag
no reason to shut up
12.01.2011 12:48
If this media coverage upsets him, or leads people who know about his real personal life to reveal things about him that allows us to get at him then it's worth it.
Not being quiet
Get a life!
12.01.2011 13:53
The simple fact is that Kennedy, and Hogbin and even me, were very good at what we did and we should be respected in the same way that activists would respect someone who had infiltrated a company and bank. A lot of this anger about Kennedy is because of a feeling that the police have made fools of you and not because of any concern about ethics and principles.
And to answer Emily’s question – of course you can be friends with such people in exactly the same way that you can still be friends with people who change their minds. During an anti-globalisation protest I was greeted by someone who I knew from an earlier protests. I congratulated him for his disguise as a banker and he informed me that he was in a fact a merchant banker and was surprised that I was still involved in protesting!
Becky
other people also being hurt
12.01.2011 13:55
Anna is by far the only one from being effected - what about their violated rights and privacy? Anna has the right to give her story in public if that is what she wants, but responsibility for the consequences of that is part and parcel of that right - something that goes for everyone talking to the press about the fuckwit.
FTP
@Becky the rat
12.01.2011 14:26
The fact you can't differntiate between infiltrators and whistleblowers shows a simplistic and poisoned world view. You say you should be respected for doing your job well and compare your job to activists infiltrating a company. Activists act out of principle, you prostitute yourself for money. The SS concentration camp guards did their job well, but nobody respects them. Paedophiles are adept at manipulating and lying for their own ends, and nobody respects them. They are a far closer moral analog to scum like you, who betrays the common good for personal profit, like you than any whistleblower who acts against their own best interest and safety for the common good.
You undermine democracy for your masters and destroy the lives of innocents, with no concept of ethics judging from your post. If someone hung you from a lamppost and I was on the jury I would refuse to convict and instead commend their public service.
fightback
Dear Becky
12.01.2011 15:34
Memory Stone
The common good
12.01.2011 17:35
It is this perception of the ‘common good’ that is more concerning. Activists justify breaking the law because they are acting for people’s ‘better instincts’ (or whatever) rather than what they actually want. Plane Stupid would deny people’s desire to fly on cheap holidays but on several occasions have been exposed after they took flights themselves – but these flights were for the ‘common good’ so it didn't matter. I actually have faith in the majority view which may be wrong but it is better than presuming that you know better and imposing your opinions through illegality and force.
Becky
The common troll
12.01.2011 18:31
You've exposed yourself as a psychologically damaged fraud by claiming to be the scum of the earth while trying to score points against Plane Stupid. Whatever flaws individuals in that group exhibit, do you really think we are going to be influenced by a nutter who aspires to be pond-life? Again, apologies to genuine pond-life...our language is discriminatory when there is nothing more pathetic and disgusting than warped little fuckers like this.
fightback
Thankyou
12.01.2011 19:28
Rob
Simply trying to provide an answer
12.01.2011 19:28
I saw my role as no different from any paid campaigner in that I believed in what I was doing and was being employed to do it. If you believe that it is right to break the law then legal infiltrating should not be such a high moral hurdle.
It is also surely important to differentiate what Mark did when he was in the police and when he was employed by Global Open. As a police officer he had a clear duty to the public which he believed that he was carrying out; with Global Open he was simply doing what the Millgates told him to do without any regard for the implications.
Finally, this is not trolling. I am not posting extraneous, inflammatory or even off-topic messages. I have been quite open about my background, tried to address the issue in a sober manner and endeavoured to give Emily the answer that she was looking for.
Becky
The Hitler Diaries
12.01.2011 20:02
Who employed you? How were you recruited? What was your wage and how was it paid? Who was your targets? Did you sleep with them? Did you get instructions about sexual behaviour? Name groups that you infiltrated. Name people you filed reports on. Describe your 'terms of engagement'. Describe your motivations. Describe your work history. What events did you attend? Who can we verify that knew you? What is your mental history?
That is all stuff that won't identify you so if you are genuine you should have no compunction. Without that info as a minimuim the simplest and most likely explanation for your 'confession/justification' is the same sick behaviour that led some mentally deranged saddo to post a pizzabox to the Joanna Yates pub. You are offended at being considered a troll but happy to pretend to be an infiltrator - that is not believable in the least.
We are all Emily here
'If you are genuine you should have no compunction'
12.01.2011 20:31
Who employed you?
Three private security companies.
How were you recruited?
Previously worked for HMC&E.
What was your wage and how was it paid?
Initially as a salary but later self-employed.
Who was your targets?
Activist groups threatening clients.
Did you sleep with them?
Once.
Did you get instructions about sexual behaviour?
No
Name groups that you infiltrated.
CAAT, LRT, CAFT, Plane Stupid and others.
Name people you filed reports on.
Too many
Describe your 'terms of engagement'.
Don’t break the law and follow the spirit of RIPA.
Describe your motivations.
It was a job and I disagreed with what the groups were doing and what they were saying.
Describe your work history.
See above.
What events did you attend?
Numerous.
Who can we verify that knew you?
Silly question.
What is your mental history?
I stopped doing this work two years ago when I should have been compromised but the group failed to take basic security measures and missed me. I have never had any mental problems.
I am not pretending to be anything and given the mess that are getting yourself into over the Kennedy affair it doesn’t need people such as me to cause any more confusion. As I said before, I was simply trying to answer a question about friendships made whilst operating undercover.
Becky
News story
12.01.2011 21:01
Claire
Obfuscation
12.01.2011 21:05
--Who employed you?
-Three private security companies.
Yes, but which private security firms?
-Previously worked for HMC&E.
Can you disclose your job title/role and how that qualified you for these further companies?
--What was your wage and how was it paid?
-Initially as a salary but later self-employed.
Again, you know fine well I am asking how much you were earning during your career, not whether you considered it a salary or a wage. Any troll could reply as you did, it takes more effort on your part than simple, safe honesty.
--Who was your targets?
-Activist groups threatening clients.
Threatening clients with violence or disruption?
--Name people you filed reports on.
-Too many
Name a few then
--Describe your 'terms of engagement'.
-Don’t break the law and follow the spirit of RIPA.
That advice was from which company? Describe 'the spirit of RIPA' in your understanding
--What events did you attend?
-Numerous.
If you are going to bother to reply to distinguish yourself from a troll, then why not take the time to give answers that distinguish you from a troll? Name a few dates and times please.
--Who can we verify that knew you?
-Silly question.
No, if you were genuinely 'intelligence' then you'd know that it is not a silly question. Any Daily Mail reader could have spouted your story, but I'd like at least a few names of activists that you've met to verify that you even know any of our names.
So far I have spent more time questioning you than you've spent answering, and that is the text-book definitition of a troll. So cough up something genuine or get off the pot.
Another victim, another day
Not quite so stupid
12.01.2011 21:37
The main point I was making was not political and not intended to muddy the waters. You are more of capable of doing that without my assistance.
My personal view is that having discovered that Kennedy was an infiltrator you should have attempted to recruit him, use him as a double-agent and find out exactly what he had done. The incompetent and messy way in which it was handled is now leading to public recriminations and this will cause massive damage to the causes that you hold dear. Ironically it has been the Daily Mail, the newspaper that you all hate, which seems to have done far more than anyone to reveal Kennedy’s background – and no I’m not going to talk to them.
During the time that I was involved with activist groups I believe that I came across two and possibly three other infiltrators, none of whom have been identified, and one was also certainly a police officer. The greater the threat that you pose to the status quo the more likely you are to become a target for infiltration. There are simply way of identifying and removing infiltrators but don’t ask me – ask Greenpeace UK because they have it down to a fine art.
Anyway there is no point in me saying anything else because you have already made upi your mind.
Becky
Ha, sure
12.01.2011 21:54
Nothing you were asked would cause you grief, you faker. You are a little worm floating on the surface, the sort of troll we see here everyday. And yet here is the Daily Mail trout biting!
Claire,
For shame. Didn't you once want to a journalist rather than a just willing sap? Yet here you are snapping at imaginary sources, for a fascist employer... oh, isn't your life worthwhile. This story is like a sewage leak, all the shit is floating to the surface now.
Not interested
Altruism
13.01.2011 09:12
Like a politician or a media whore? - claim the moral high-ground and pocket the dosh.
lobster cops
Faker! Greenpeace UK is full of informers
13.01.2011 11:52
employee
How to spot spooks
13.01.2011 23:38
anothervictim
not always, not even by their shoes
14.01.2011 10:47
"They always stay slightly under the radar during actions, and they have abnormally small dicks."
Not 'always'. How does Mark on TV chained to gates or halfway up a pylon fit this? Kind of on the radar. Another police infiltrator's tactics included getting arrested wherever possible on actions/riots, and inventing another serious arrest, presumably to raise his activist credibility, though some other motives have also been considered. Other cops or informers working here and undercover in the past/recent past have sometimes been quite high profile, though sometimes the crucial position they are in is not to do with actions but with intelligence gathering, eg the cop who was second in command in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, the one in the Anti-Vietnam Committee... Even Mark was probably more useful for the names, addresses, contacts, who knows who etc, info he could supply both here and abroad.
In fact there is little need to stay 'below the radar' if you are not going to get charged or face any serious consequences, as undercovers can realistically expect; in fact the opposite could be more true - someone always being militant verbally who's never around at crunch time could arouse suspicion. Though come to think of it that describes a good half of the anarchist or activist scenes. Which comes to the heart of the matter - how do you tell a provocateur from a mouthy or even just enthusiastic rebel? How do you tell an infiltrator deliberately sowing discord from the genuine awkward sectarian? How do you tell the cop implanted to hold back actions from those with real doubts or political arguments?
Most times, you don't. Despite all the hindsight, most people we have suspicions about are never confirmed, and if they are it is usually afterwards, sometimes years later. The thing that has triggered most questions in recent years has been someone's sudden disappearance which has led to people looking back on previous behaviour. Even then - with 'Lyn Watson' for example - confirmation of even strong suspicion has come later.
Mark of course is a slightly different case, the first undercover unmasked while in place in the UK at least for a while that I can think of. (Could be wrong tho). The way most come a cropper is their own incompetence or a silly mistake, which can come after many years of success as Mark shows; there's a slim chance that he and at least one other could have made mistakes either deliberately because they were getting cold feet and wanted it all to end ( ie be pulled out by their controllers), or sub-consciously because they really were starting to doubt their work. That is being charitable to them and I am not saying that in either case it is true.
But in some other situations where undercovers went in for much shorter, more immediate info or to prevent/provoke something, they tend to be in more of a hurry and make more mistakes. Eg Nigel and Mary in the Huntley Street evictions in 1978, who were outed by some of the squatters, though sadly others refused to believe it (with the consequence that they helped the police to evict from the inside).
If they are properly trained and careful there may well be no way to spot them.
Otherwise, the ways to prevent undercovers being effective are to do with thee ways we work, organise, communicate and rely on questions of trust and common sense - of which there is a shortage in some quarters. Useful and practical discussion should focus on that, because the filth will always send people in - their current dificulties won't last long; thee growing anti-cuts struggles on all fronts will demand new narks in new and varied groups...
Johann Neve
Touching tale
15.11.2011 14:31
I almost feel like joining up myself (one day .........)
stephen lavender
e-mail:
slavenderx@gmail.com
Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments