This article is obvious bullshit with no evidence at all.

ignore the cop troll - ( there seems to be a number of them on IMC mainly from special branch trying demobilise movements ).

Publish the scanned documents via wikileaks or IMC

"there seems to be a number of them on IMC mainly from special branch trying demobilise movements"

You are dreaming sunshine, in the first place 'Special Branch' hasn't even existed since 2005 when it merged with the Anti Terrorist Squad and became the Counter Terrorism Command plus when the UK is facing real terrorist threats from Islamic nutters do you really think they give a toss what a few Anarchists and Marxists write here ?

Grow up.

yes, special branch ( or whatever operational name they go by now ) DO take what happens amongst anarchists and marxists seriously, thats why they attempt to demobilise movements - they recognise the problems that can happen if we get large enough to be effective.

You're fooling yourself mate. The police don't care about the keyboard warriors of IMC, they are focused on groups that threaten the State, in the old days this meant groups like CND when they were getting a lot of Soviet funding or SHAC when they were a real threat to animal experimentation. In the modern world that is violent Islamic extremism, Chinese cyber threats and Russian industrial espionage within the oil & gas industry.

Nobody on here falls into the status of a threat.

I'm sorry to say that the history of the political Left in this country shows that the State needs to do very little to break up our organisations. In fact the majority of the destabilisation has come from within without any outside interference. The memoirs of various intelligence agents all document that the Left always thinks that they are being spied upon when in fact they very rarely are.

Take a look at the 'RESPECT' party, the most obvious government set-up and funded organisation since the Democratic Socialist Alliance.

No Anarchist or Marxist organisation has ever gotten large enough to threaten the State for the simple reason that there are not nearly enough supporters in the country. The Security Services don't need to worry about their plotting, scheming and organising because they never amount to anything that warrants a threat.

For example the following failed to achieve even 500 votes in the whole country during the last General Election


Communist League of Great Britain
Communist League (UK, 1990)
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (backed Labour under Thatcher to vote-out the Conservatives)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (formed from former members of the SLP)
Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
Communist Workers Organisation
Democratic Socialist Alliance
Economic and Philosophic Science Review
International Communist Current
New Communist Party of Britain (backs Labour)
Peace and Progress Party
People's Party (formed from former members of Labour)
Permanent Revolution (group)
Red Party (formed by former members of the CPGB PCC)
Revolutionary Communist Group
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Revolutionary Democratic Group
Socialist Action
Socialist Appeal (supports the Labour Party candidates)
Socialist Equality Party (formed from former members of the WRP)
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Spartacist League
Socialist Workers Party
Workers Power

This article is obvious bullshit with no evidence at all.
Reliable witnesses? What makes them reliable? where are they? where is the testomony? Where it the evidence?

You have nothing on show. Therefore must assume crank bullshit

" The police don't care about the keyboard warriors of IMC, they are focused on groups that threaten the State"

So what the fuck was mark Kennedy about then?

And this:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472575.html

and Fitwatch?

Plonker......

" The police don't care about the keyboard warriors of IMC, they are focused on groups that threaten the State"

>So what the fuck was mark Kennedy about then?
Not indymedia or keyboard warriors.

> And this:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472575.html
Police can write comments too. So what? Suppose you'd complain if a supermarket shelf stacker wrote a comment too?

>and Fitwatch?
Nothing to do with indymedia or keyboard warriors

> Plonker......
So two of your comments are even relevent to indy or keyboard warriors, and the other is about a policeman writing comments. You plonker.

" In the modern world that is violent Islamic extremism, Chinese cyber threats and Russian industrial espionage within the oil & gas industry."

So remind us which of those categories Mark Kennedy, The trolling cop (who didn't "care about the keyboard warriors of IMC") and Fitwatch were involved in.

> " In the modern world that is violent Islamic extremism, Chinese cyber threats and Russian industrial espionage within the oil & gas industry."
So remind us which of those categories Mark Kennedy, The trolling cop (who didn't "care about the keyboard warriors of IMC") and Fitwatch were involved in.

So,... you actually think that is a COMPLETE list or issues we face do you?
And because Mark Kennedy doesn't fit into that list of 3 items, you are therefore proven right?
Seriously? Do i need to answer at how thick you are being?
(hint: there list is much longer than 3 items)

.... quote from realist.

So that'll be the issues he identified, not me.

Insulting people over the internet is obviously the work of a radical genius :-)

all posts from the 303 and 202 gateways dried up immediately after the article was published, and have not resumed.

Bearing in mind the desire of the state to retain all internet records indefinitely, this means that should at any point the state present Indymedia posts as evidence in a trial, the defendant would be entitled to disclosure of where the Gateway 303 and 202 posts actually came from.

As several posts contained information about activists which only the police would have had access to at the time they were made, it seems amazing that the 'librarians' and 'firefighters' all stopped posting at the same time, wouldn't you say?

So, an interesting theory but impossible to prove either way, for now.

But I get the point of the trolling on this thread. Activists have nothing to worry about, the cops are interested only in those who pose a danger to the state , which as a Realist you reckon means violent Islamic extremism, Chinese cyber threats and Russian industrial espionage within the oil & gas industry. They have no interest whatsoever in what happens on Indymedia.

And yet, I figure that I will continue to exercise caution when posting sensitive info to any internet site because I think Mark Kennedy was one of several coppers who infiltrated activist groups in the uk, a large number of the 303 and 202 posts probably did come from NETCU and FITWatch has been a response to large scale information gathering about activists by the state.

Those who believe that you are correct and that there is no interest in Indymedia users and activists who use Indymedia obviously needn't bother, because as you have pointed out there is no point.

Of course, it does occur to me that the only ones who would know with certainty what the cops are interested in would be the cops, and I wouldn't trust a cop to tell me the time of day.

As to the original post - we are asked to believe that the cops simply walked out of a police station and left lots of incriminating papers and evidence behind. There are no photos and no documents to back up these claims, and bearing in mind that the cops conduct forensic examinations of premises fairly often, I'm sure they wouldn't have thought to ensure that they had left no evidence behind when vacating this unamed cop-shop.

So while the planet collapses around us we are able to post shite on the internets, rather than take action to safeguard ourselves from the rapacious ruling class.

What meaningful lives we all lead, wouldn't you say?

You claim that,

"posts from the 303 and 202 gateways dried up immediately after the article was published, and have not resumed." when in fact the mods stated clearly that the filter was turned off when the article was published here so you are simply guessing or lying. If however you are involved with the site here and the filter was not de-activated perhaps you could tell us why the mods lied to all the site contributors ?

Its good that you have so much time to contribute your invaluable insights to this site. After all, you're an expert on what the cops are interested in and clearly willing to counter any suggestion that they might abuse this site.

" If however you are involved with the site here and the filter was not de-activated perhaps you could tell us why the mods lied to all the site contributors ?"

Can you please link to this promise that Indymedia would no longer be filtering those gateways?

It clearly isn't this this:

"Sheffield Indymedia supports the use of anti-abuse features to track and remove disinformation from the site and long argued for the feature article exposing the state abuse to be published."

"Last time I looked this site was Indymedia UK not Indymedia Sheffield but I suppose as Chris is the only real techy the site has left and he was instrumental in the theft of the Indymedia name from the rightful collective I assume they are pretty much the same thing these days."

Heres how it works - to aid your confusion:

Indymedia works through consensus decision making. Sheffield Indymedia is therefore part of the process and the quote makes it clear that they support continued use of anti-abuse measures. Therefore the quote indicates that the claim 'Realist' made that there was a promise to Indymedia users that the filter would be 'de-activated' would not have had consensus.

"Mind you if we are quoting other Indymedia sites why not this article  http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1313 or maybe this one from the site here  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/473103.html"

Firstly lets deal with the northern article. Northern England IMC withdrew from adminning the uk site, and therefore were no longer involved in the consensus about the adminning of the Uk site. Secondly, Northen England IMC mods specifically denied being the author of that article, despite the fact that much of the comment was a parroting of the emails of one of their (now ex) members emails. Furthermore, besides the fact that the anonymous poster was not in a position to make any promises on behalf of the uk site, the article does not actually promise that the filters would be de-activated. So its irrelevant and des not provide evidence that there was a promise by Indymedia uk to de-activate the filters.

The second link to an uk article is a post by IMC linksunten (South-West Germany) and it doesn't take a genius to recognise that they clearly are not in a position to make and promises on behalf of the collective(s) that mod the uk site.

So, nice distraction, but no donut.

"Finally here is an excerpt from the Guidelines under which the site is supposed to be run

"All the web servers that are used for the UK Indymedia web site are set up not to log IP adresss. This ensures the privacy of people who are browsing the site and posting news and comments to it.""

And this was addressed in the Birmingham feature: ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2011/01/472560.html)

"It is absolutely true that Indymedia does not log IPs - by which we mean the IP Addresses of those who use the website are not recorded for the purposes of protecting their privacy. However, what has never been openly stated before is that the CMS system we use has a number of anti-abuse measures which include the ability to monitor for particular IP addresses and log their behaviour. The key here is that IP addresses are never written to the hard disk - they are briefly held in the RAM (i.e. temporary) memory only. Only when particular IP addresses are identified as persistent abusers are they applied to filters. There remains no general practice of logging each and every user. Once the anti-abuse measures are turned off, any IP addresses identified are automatically wiped from the virtual memory and, as they were never written to the hard disk, no amount of forensics would ever be able to find them.

In this particular instance however, the filter for the Gateway 303 IP was manually added after site admins became aware of a post on Animal Rights Copwatch[1] which revealed that someone posting from Gateway 303 had posted to their site, posing as an Animal Rights activist. This allowed all posts from Gateway 303 to be identified and each post was flagged with an internal comment that identified it as a post from Gateway 303."
[1]  http://arcops.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/dear-max/

So, as was explained then and is still the case, Indymedia uk does not log IP addresses. Therefore:

"However the state chooses to respond to this revelation, the truth remains that there is no written log of IP addresses, and that no amount of duress will enable any IMC admin to reveal information that quite simply is not available to them. We will endeavour to produce an article detailing how our anti-abuse measures operate, as quickly as possible."

And so on to the stunning conclusion:

"In fact a select group of Mods were secretly harvesting the IP details of thousands of people who visited the site, saving them to a private file on Traven and then making assumptions about who was posting to the site."

Heres my theory - 'Realist' unable to provide the evidence to back up his claim, became 'confused' and then came up with irrelevant links which do not back up his assertions. Neither can be back up his claim about thousands of IP addresses being harvested in a private file - because it is a big fat lie.

Heres a way to think about it.

You leave your bedroom window open whilst you're out and you come back and someone has shat on your bed. Next day the same thing happens. How long do you leave the window open and allow this to go on? You can either say, oh well activists are being attacked by the state but so what? or you can say well we can filter the state gateway that we know troll posts are coming from and see what happens. Personally I believe that it would be wrong not to do so.

What the northern article never did is show that the posts were in fact from genuine activists who happened to work for the state. So why not sift through them (link here -  http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/2011/01/472619.html) and decide for yourself?

So 'Realist'/'confused' have you found a link to the promise or was it simply disinformation when you claimed that:

"If however you are involved with the site here and the filter was not de-activated perhaps you could tell us why the mods lied to all the site contributors ?"

You can read more about consensus decision making here:

 http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consensus

Whilst the Realist/confused duo have been posting on this thread, comments have also appeared on the SHAC Astra Zeneca thread:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494773.html?c=on#c281559
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494773.html?c=on#c281563
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494773.html?c=on#c281568


Unsubstantiated claims about SHAC. Which led to a comment that :

"In this 'movement' we operate best by attacking those who the state is after, and stabbing activists in the back.
That is definitely the way to beat the ruling class and save the planet.
In fact if you find the evidence compelling, why not visit the source and get it direct from the horses mouth?
 http://shacwatch.blogspot.co.uk/, after all "SHACWATCH will provide that balance."
NB no horses mouths were actually injured in the production of this comment."
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494773.html?c=on#c281565

Now, you may be wondering how this is relevant? Well it seems that SHACWatch is also a purveyor of lies about logging on Indymedia uk:

"ex IMC mod said...

What is of interest to us here at SHACwatch is Indy at last admitting that it was the logged IP details that an Indy insider passed to the police in the first SHAC trials that helped in the conviction."
 http://shacwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/indylies-rip.html

Is it possible that most of the comments this morning are from the same person?

Yes......

just a new set of unsubstantiated claims (in fact lies)

and with that the thread is now hidden as non-news/inaccurate

complaints about the decision can be directed to  moderation@lists.indymedia.org.uk