Skip to content or view screen version

"Mark Stone" and the Achilles' Heel of Activism

Infantile Disorder | 19.01.2011 15:04 | Repression | Social Struggles

The unmasking of activist "Mark Stone" as Police Constable Mark Kennedy has sent shockwaves through anti-capitalist groups around the UK. Police infiltration had long been considered a given by the more savvy demonstrators. But the fact that Kennedy had played such an integral part in the organisation of high profile direct actions - and police repression of them - has exposed the Achilles' heel of activism: its reliance on the good will of people who are often total strangers.

They called him "Flash": Kennedy made £50,000 a year undercover
They called him "Flash": Kennedy made £50,000 a year undercover

"Lyn Watson" was said to be camera shy
"Lyn Watson" was said to be camera shy

"Marco Jacobs" was active in Brighton
"Marco Jacobs" was active in Brighton


Kennedy had been an undercover agent since 2003, and was only outed last October, when his activist girlfriend found his original passport. As part of the secretive National Public Order Intelligence Unit, he'd spilled the beans on the attempt to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottingham, anti-fascist actions, and opposition to the 2005 G8 summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, amongst many other events. He had been due to present audio recordings in the power station case, but was dropped when it became clear that "The tapes I made meant that the police couldn’t prove their case." The revelation caused the case to collapse at Nottingham Crown Court last week.

Kennedy has now confirmed the suspicions of Leeds activists, namely that "Lyn Watson" was actually "Officer A". The Saturday Guardian unveiled "Officer B" as "Marco" Jacobs, who had successfully infiltrated the Cardiff Anarchist Network, No Borders, and early Climate Camps.

It needs to be recognised that the very nature of this type of protest group lends itself to state infiltration. People organise locally at first, but they will likely not have known each other before getting involved with the group. When a 'new person' arrives, they are often treated cautiously, and it normally takes a long time for a newcomer to be trusted for key roles. However, if their behaviour seems to fit with what is expected of them, they will eventually gain access to sensitive information.

Large scale, set piece direct actions are even more vulnerable. Though a certain 'scene' exists, and people know activists from around the country and indeed the world, if a 'new person' shows up at a set piece direct action, they will necessarily gain a certain amount of trust from people who don't know them. This is particularly dangerous when activists are committing illegal or potentially illegal acts. After all - it may be considered - if the are putting themselves at risk, they must be trustworthy. Unfortunately, the "Stone" case proves this is not true. As Kennedy told the Mail On Sunday:

"Every action I took had to receive something called an ‘authority’ which covered me to infiltrate activist groups and be involved in minor crime such as trespass and criminal damage".

In other words, Kennedy had police licence to commit crimes, so long as his information led to the arrest of others.

These are not problems that say, the striking Wigan Heinz workers could have faced. If an unknown face had appeared at one of their meetings, he or she would have been placed under great suspicion. Similarly, even those taking part in the ongoing Tunisian uprising against the government would know a great many of their comrades to be their colleagues and neighbours.

In of itself, the infiltration problem does not mean that the 'anti-capitalist' style of demonstrating is a dead end, though it is surely impossible for such activists to guard against clandestine state intervention. But workplaces and neighbourhoods are where the day-to-day battle against capitalist domination is fought, and it is there that the resistance is most protected from stage subterfuge.

Infantile Disorder
- Homepage: http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.com/

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

"Authority"??

19.01.2011 18:17

I agree very much with your basic point. However, I suspect this:

"Every action I took had to receive something called an ‘authority’ which covered me to infiltrate activist groups and be involved in minor crime such as trespass and criminal damage".

may be bollocks. It's only what he says and there is a possibility he was going well beyond his "authority" (if there ever was any in a specific sense). It's only informed speculation, obviously, but we shouldn't take as gospel anything said by NPOIU, ACPO, Sir Hugh Ordure, the "cop over the water" or any others of that ilk. It may be (note the "may") that Kennedy did not so much "go native" on his bosses as go loose cannon.

Stroppyoldgit


Good piece

19.01.2011 22:57

How refreshing to see a well-written, original article on Indymedia, instead of all the corporate crap re-posted in relation to the Kennedy affair. Moreover, one apparently being allowed to remain on the newswire. As for Stone, definitely a loose cannon with loose morals, a loose tongue, and probably right now, a loose sphincter.

Alec


Smart Alec

20.01.2011 09:23

It isn't an original piece. It's a repost from a blog.

And the difference between this article and the repeatedly posted article that was hidden is that this article doesn't make unsubstantiated attacks, which while serving to fuel your paranoioa nicely aren't actually very helpful.

It's all too easy to hide behind your anonymity and accuse everyone of everything, and who needs undercover cops if Indymedia turns into a forum where we can all, without any evidence, denounce each other publicly?

If you're unhappy with the way things are moderated, then use the moderation list.

celA


But....

20.01.2011 10:57

What this article fails to take into account is that every TYPE of organisation and movement has been infiltrated - take the NUM, SWP, NF, Socialist Party, IRA and now eco-activists and anarchists.

There are some good points you make in regards to how confidence can easily be gained by someone who acts and plays the part on a social level - I agree with this. It also shows that the groups we have formed over the years need to be more engaging on the political level - which may have prevented some of these infiltrations emerging in the first place. Activist movements are notoriously practical and often fetish tactics above analysis - this means that the most practical, those that enable things to happen ( like having access to transport ) become highly valuable.

Infiltration is not the only threat we face, there are others which are more serious and more able to destroy movements, they are the tolerated behaviour of individuals which approach our movement as purely a social outlet, that prevent deeper analysis and ideas forming by shutting down discussions, or preventing experimentation. They are those which clearly have disruptive drink and drugs problems that prevent and limit how these groups expand. There are the liberal-spiritual-earth-monkeys that promote this stereotype that we are bunch of self-indulgent, insular fuckwits.

We have to recognise that the infiltrations are a sign of weakness NOT strength of the state. It may have reassured them that Jim or Lynn or Mark or Marko ( and the others that we know about that have yet to be released ) provided such valuable knowledge but they never could stop these movements. Let the state believe they have a finger in every pie, that they can go forwards knowing that the threats posed towards them by the increasingly rebellious proles can be manipulated or controlled just by the use of operatives in fairly unthreatening activist actions.

The real rebellion that we are contributing every day is growing, the crisis in representations has been made possible by a new generation, EVERY HATES THE POLICE.

If I was a policeman - either in uniform or not - I will be feeling very scared that they are running out of tools to repress, very scared indeed. Remember coppers its not the people you know who will be ramming a 12ft builders fence on your skulls, its the ones who you don't know.

London Anarchist


London Anarchist

20.01.2011 13:15

My god you are so full of it! You appear to suggest that only those who have the intellect to deeply analyse issues are welcome to join the struggle against repression...WTF is that only people that you agree with and who follow your views of the struggle. This is supposed to be an inclusive movement where anyone can come along and fight the fight. If they stop discussion and prevent experimentation then go elsewhere (may be night school to brush up on spelling, "every hates the police" not sure what that means!)

As for threats against the police, if you are so brave why haven’t you started attacking the police on the streets? Oh right, you need to the support of your mates and the anonymity that comes with fighting them during a protest. I am all for action, but these comments are just going to be fuel to fire the police in the protest in 29th. They don't need any more justification to come in heavy handed, yet there you are..

In short you are a c**t and deserve everything you get!

Sir Paul


On Trust

21.01.2011 14:44

Trust is a two-sided insult to intelligence. If someone says that they trust me to do the right thing, then they mean they trust me to do what they think I should do, which imposes on me the duty to guess what they assume about me. It's an insult and an imposition, an unfair constraint.

If I trust them, I am saying I am too lazy to check out basic facts about them. It's worse in a group where infiltrators muddy the issues by statements such as 'I am trusted by so-and-so therefore I am beyond suspicion', or 'I trust them with my life so I will share your information with them that you asked me to keep secret'. You don't need to trust anyone, even in group actions you can keep yourself free by following basic logical principles.

If you don't need to know, don't ask. If you don't need to tell, don't. If someone breaks these rules and hasn't admitted their error in advance then exclude them.

Trust is your achilles heel, and simple logic is your armour.

Danny