look; what do you expect?

the state surveys far right groups.
the state surveys far left groups
the state surveys islamic groups

i am sure nobody would have a problem with the state keeping an eye on far right groups, ie David Copeland nail bomber, nor with islamic groups ie 7/7.

thus, they also need to keep an eye on anarchist groups, just in case there are psycho nutters that want to blow things up.

if you are anarchists, you should be aware that the state will keep an eye on subversive activity.
it is a bit hypocritical to call for an abolition of the state, and when the state keeps an eye on you, you start boo hoo crying and seeking compensation from the state itself.

your ideology is confused. if you are anarchists, you have no real right to beg the state to change the law.

basically, harden up and stop being such crybabies! shit happens!

Working on the (probably misguided) assumption you're not just a troll, it's fucking ridiculous to claim that if you're opposed to the state you can't also object to individual things the state does. By the same token anarchists can't campaign against wars, institutional racism or austerity politics.

On the specific case of 'Marco' - the wider public would probably have an issue with the tactics used and the types of people and campaigns targeted. It's one thing to monitor potential threats it's another to attempt to have hugely damaging relationships with individuals with the intention of subverting groups for political reasons.

lying to get a woman in bed is not, in itself, a crime.

i wish you success in your campaign.

however, as most anarchists practice polyamory. perhaps you ought to question that.

Sorry for my last post - I see now that polyamoury and lying to get someone into bed have nothing in common. Polyamoury is about building trust, not sleeping with as many people as possible.

I also appologise for the casual racism in my first post - most muslims are not terrorists and police surveilance of Islamic groups is excessive.

Back when "Marco"he used to post on indymedia on a regular basis. I seems most police, undercover or not, tasked with dealing with protest groups did. Often this was off topic crap designed to railroad discussion off into pointless areas, with just enough offence to upset.

Some things don't change it seems.

I have been attempting to comment on this thread for a number of days but my computer either crashes or the site is blocked by my laptop.

anyway, here I will attempt again to comment.

Firstly, it has already been established, particularly by reports at the time of the uncovering of Mark Kennedy and the 'furore' around him, that cops on this particular mission to disrupt various movement sin the UK acted unlawfully and without apparent permission from their superior officers. It was stated by senior officers from the MET that sleeping with targets is/was prohibited.

The issue of those being against the state 'moaning' about cops acting illegally has not been touched on properly, or in a fashion that would represent the truth behind anarchist actions and involvement in the UK movements.

For a start, bomb-throwing anarchists are essentially a very small minority of anarcho's who interpret anarchist texts to their own ends. That is their business. Recently over the last few years Bristol has seen a number of insurrectionary communiques with a distinctly anarchic edge to them. All credit to those brothers and sisters for acting how they feel is the way forward for them.

However, anarchists are well documented taking part in numerous, almost too numerous to mention, social movements that do not come any where close to the bomb-throwing interpretations. For example, the anti-road, anti-borders, anti-fash, anti-police brutality, anti-prison, anti-violence against women, anti-sexism, pro-environment, animal lib and free-party scenes have all had anarchists often at the forefront of the planning and delivery of various projects and actions. Many of those movements, particularly Occupy and Climate Camps, act on various interpretations of anarchist principles even if they are not totally anarchist in consequence.

The point is therefore that by saying 'under cover cops stop bomb throwers' you in actual fact not representing the truth of the situation, because undercover cops do not in fact stop bomb throwing (as there are to date no convictions of bomb-throwers within the movement attributed to under cover cops, that I am aware of) so what we have is a clear attempt by trolls or by misguided folk (or by undercovers on IM themselves) to try and steer the debate away from what these cops were doing meddling in and ruining lives of people who are not at all 'terrorists' or 'bomb throwing anarchists' and are simply part or were part of movements that ahd real change as their agenda, such as Grow Heathrow or Climate Camp, or Occupy or Animal Lib or Anti-Capitalism, etc.

So then the question becomes 'why does the state employ these tactics against seemingly well-meaning and mostly non-violent groups and individuals?'

The answer to this comes with many complexities and realities, but I will try to skim the surface to keep this brief.

Essentially, the state allows this type of action from cops and private security firms so that all dissent, whether peaceful, non-violent direct action or rock-throwing anarcho marches through London or student demos or anti-Tesco demos, squat movements or anti-fash mobilisations under the same banner as 'terrorists', that's why anti-terror laws are often used to attempt to control, contain and otherwise disrupt these movements.

By labelling dissenters as terrorists or by using the manipulation of the transivity of Linguistics in the press and other reporting outlets (like the cops) , ie. by stating a 'direct action happened' and in the same report mention black block or ALF or violence from a minority, the propaganda becomes one of allowing the readers and therefore the wider public to come to the conclusion that all protestors are potential rock throwers or violent anarchists. This is some linguistic theory so I apologise for taking it too off-topic perhaps, but the point is essentially that the unlawful behaviour of these cops ahs to be confronted precisely because they were not stopping 'bombers' or violent anarchists, but actually people who were taking part or planning to take part in mostly direct, but non violent action for change and for a movement that has more of a public mandate than police violence or war in the middle east, for example climate change. The public are more happy for fluffies to be up chimneys to protest climate change than they are for cops to be tasering old people to death or shooting young black men who are unarmed.

some antifa and black bloc actions are violent and go way overboard. I mean, why do anarchists have a right to beat up and terrorise people who have a different view on immigration and gay rights to them? Why do some anarchists celebrate violence against cops (class war)? what about the informal anarchists federation which have blown things up? what about noborders which has helped illegal immigrants into the UK? i've seen anarchists attack peaceful anti abortion pro life rallies. anarchists act like fascists when it suits them, it seems.

these are all illegal things, and it is not surprising you got the state on your arse if you advocate and do these things. it is a bit crybaby frankly. never heard the IRA complain about british agents in the organization, because they knew that there had to be secret agents because of the nature of their activity.

perhaps the state will give a payout, which i guess helps if you're on the dole, as most anarchists invariably are.

OK, polyamory is another name for free love, although to be honest, the love we mean is sex. polyamory is free sex which is free love which is polyamory. an attack on hetronormative patriarchy based on bourgeois views of marriage, which are justified through the state which creates the family. furthermore, hetronormative patriarchal marriages were defined by religion.

well, for a start, you appear to talk as if you don't even consider undercover cops a problem and have completely side stepped most of the thing I wrote about to carry on about bomb throwing anarchos or violent anarchos.

I shall just say this: the state and tis big business cronies are involved in far more violence than any of us will ever be, anarcho or other.

the state and the cops and the armies are the monopolisers of violence and pacifism only serves their global world police and world capital state agenda, it does not help those at the bottom trying to fight back or seek change.

what that means in real-talk is quite simply that cops are mandated by politicos and bankers to smash your ehad in if you start waving banners around, soldiers are trained and paid to shoot you if you start trying to change things by actually confronting them and banker and other big business can raise entire villages to the ground around the world with private security firms to protect and build big profits...

so who are the real violent ones??

really?

get a grip of yourself and wake up to the reality of struggle.it comes in all shapes and sizes and sometimes includes physically confronting the state and its apparatice, or fash or EDL or border cops.

however, that is by the by, as I was talking about how these undercovers were mostly targeting climate campers and other non-violent groups.