Saturday 28 April 2007. I arrive at the University of London Union on Malet Street just before two in the afternoon. I’m here for an open meeting aimed at publicising and protesting against Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEI), the world’s largest arms fair, staged every two years in London’s Dockland. Five or six of us gather in an upstairs room. Others arrive and start to complain about being filmed – yet again – by a photographer who’s outside the building with ten or so police officers. People in the room become anxious. Before the meeting finally begins, I get up and go outside to confront these officers of the Forward Intelligence Team (FIT). I’ve had enough.
FIT is the brainchild of Inspector Barry Norman and Sergeant Andy Brittan of the Metropolitan police. Originally created to combat football hooliganism in the early 1990s, Norman and Brittan quickly realised the usefulness of these overt surveillance teams to control and ultimately stifle political protest. First to feel the heat were anti-globalisation activists of the Reclaim The Streets (RTS) collective. Prior to a street party in Brighton in 1996 organised by RTS, police would spy on activists at their London office. The office was subsequently raided and computers taken away. No charges were ever brought, though that hasn’t stopped the FITs raiding the offices of Greenpeace to remove computers and other material.
I’m holding two small placards: Respect Our Privacy and No Photography. I walk across to the cameraman and ask him to stop filming because people attending the meeting prefer not to be filmed. He ignores my polite request. I hold the placards up in front of the camera. The photographer rushes forward, pushing his camera into the placards, trying but failing to dislodge them. I move forward holding them right up to the camera lens now, partially obstructing the view of the camera. Someone else joins me, taking a placard and blocking. People leave the meeting to see what’s happening.
Over the last ten years harassment of political activists has noticeably intensified. I have been filmed at countless meetings. People arriving at the Camp for climate action near Heathrow airport in August were filmed. Many were stopped and searched, some forcibly. Activists involved in the No Borders campaign are filmed. Those attending meetings in the run up to G8 summits are filmed. Critical Mass bike rides are repeatedly filmed. The FIT police routinely follow people to and from demonstrations. Someone I know was followed all the way into his grandmother’s nursing home where he was visiting! The effects of such close surveillance are obviously damaging. People are fearful that the police may be building a file to use against them. Many are concerned for their jobs. Some have suffered nervous breakdowns as a result of the constant harassment. So people stop coming to meetings because they’re afraid of the consequences. And so legitimate voices of protest are silenced.
The stand-off with the photographer lasts fifteen minutes. He moves to the top of some steps opposite the entrance to the union building so he can film over our heads. I try to go up the steps to reach him. Four police officers come between me and the photographer. I keep holding the placard up as high as I can. By now the twenty people who’d turned up for the meeting are all outside. After ten more minutes, I’m grabbed by officers, kicked and handcuffed behind my back. The person who’d joined the protest is arrested with me.
My car is routinely stopped by the police because, I’m told, it’s been involved in criminal activity. Not true. I took my car to the climate camp in August where the car was photographed and searched, and it has been subject to 'random' stops ever since. I do have a criminal record - trespassing, for example on Fairford Airbase in 2003 as I attempted to disrupt the take off of US bombers to Iraq. And there have been other similar convictions. But do my ‘crimes’ deserve that degree of surveillance? Of course they don’t. Those of us who take direct action against illegal wars, who try and disrupt arms fairs or stand in the way of bulldozers ripping up the countryside are not terrorists as the British government would have the population believe in order to justify ever increasing expenditure on domestic intelligence.
On October 9th I will be on trial for obstructing a police cameraman. I will argue that what the police are doing – the accumulation of photographs and data on people with ‘unpopular’ political views – is unlawful. So far the police have refused to disclose what exactly what they have done with all these photographs, or why they wanted photos of people attending a public meeting in the first place. They have also refused to disclose the extent of the police file that has been built up on me over the years. Unless they are prepared to ‘come clean’ over all this, I will argue, they cannot possibly begin to justify the intrusion of privacy that has taken place. And without that justification what they have done, and what they continue to do, is unlawful.
I think I have a very good case. But even if I win, I cannot see an end to political intimidation now that the New Labour government has handed over so much power to the police and intelligence services. And it is because we cannot rely on the protection of the law that FITWATCH was born earlier this year. Now activists are playing the police at their own game, filming officers and posting their photos along with name, rank and number to a rapidly expanding website. Activists can download spotter cards to help them identify FIT members and take appropriate action. And activists can share their experiences of police intimidation. Now when we hold meetings we will do everything we can to stop intrusive police filming. No longer will we ignore these attacks on our fundamental rights to freedom of expression. Enough is enough.
val.swain@yahoo.co.uk
www.fitwatch.blogspot.com
FIT is the brainchild of Inspector Barry Norman and Sergeant Andy Brittan of the Metropolitan police. Originally created to combat football hooliganism in the early 1990s, Norman and Brittan quickly realised the usefulness of these overt surveillance teams to control and ultimately stifle political protest. First to feel the heat were anti-globalisation activists of the Reclaim The Streets (RTS) collective. Prior to a street party in Brighton in 1996 organised by RTS, police would spy on activists at their London office. The office was subsequently raided and computers taken away. No charges were ever brought, though that hasn’t stopped the FITs raiding the offices of Greenpeace to remove computers and other material.
I’m holding two small placards: Respect Our Privacy and No Photography. I walk across to the cameraman and ask him to stop filming because people attending the meeting prefer not to be filmed. He ignores my polite request. I hold the placards up in front of the camera. The photographer rushes forward, pushing his camera into the placards, trying but failing to dislodge them. I move forward holding them right up to the camera lens now, partially obstructing the view of the camera. Someone else joins me, taking a placard and blocking. People leave the meeting to see what’s happening.
Over the last ten years harassment of political activists has noticeably intensified. I have been filmed at countless meetings. People arriving at the Camp for climate action near Heathrow airport in August were filmed. Many were stopped and searched, some forcibly. Activists involved in the No Borders campaign are filmed. Those attending meetings in the run up to G8 summits are filmed. Critical Mass bike rides are repeatedly filmed. The FIT police routinely follow people to and from demonstrations. Someone I know was followed all the way into his grandmother’s nursing home where he was visiting! The effects of such close surveillance are obviously damaging. People are fearful that the police may be building a file to use against them. Many are concerned for their jobs. Some have suffered nervous breakdowns as a result of the constant harassment. So people stop coming to meetings because they’re afraid of the consequences. And so legitimate voices of protest are silenced.
The stand-off with the photographer lasts fifteen minutes. He moves to the top of some steps opposite the entrance to the union building so he can film over our heads. I try to go up the steps to reach him. Four police officers come between me and the photographer. I keep holding the placard up as high as I can. By now the twenty people who’d turned up for the meeting are all outside. After ten more minutes, I’m grabbed by officers, kicked and handcuffed behind my back. The person who’d joined the protest is arrested with me.
My car is routinely stopped by the police because, I’m told, it’s been involved in criminal activity. Not true. I took my car to the climate camp in August where the car was photographed and searched, and it has been subject to 'random' stops ever since. I do have a criminal record - trespassing, for example on Fairford Airbase in 2003 as I attempted to disrupt the take off of US bombers to Iraq. And there have been other similar convictions. But do my ‘crimes’ deserve that degree of surveillance? Of course they don’t. Those of us who take direct action against illegal wars, who try and disrupt arms fairs or stand in the way of bulldozers ripping up the countryside are not terrorists as the British government would have the population believe in order to justify ever increasing expenditure on domestic intelligence.
On October 9th I will be on trial for obstructing a police cameraman. I will argue that what the police are doing – the accumulation of photographs and data on people with ‘unpopular’ political views – is unlawful. So far the police have refused to disclose what exactly what they have done with all these photographs, or why they wanted photos of people attending a public meeting in the first place. They have also refused to disclose the extent of the police file that has been built up on me over the years. Unless they are prepared to ‘come clean’ over all this, I will argue, they cannot possibly begin to justify the intrusion of privacy that has taken place. And without that justification what they have done, and what they continue to do, is unlawful.
I think I have a very good case. But even if I win, I cannot see an end to political intimidation now that the New Labour government has handed over so much power to the police and intelligence services. And it is because we cannot rely on the protection of the law that FITWATCH was born earlier this year. Now activists are playing the police at their own game, filming officers and posting their photos along with name, rank and number to a rapidly expanding website. Activists can download spotter cards to help them identify FIT members and take appropriate action. And activists can share their experiences of police intimidation. Now when we hold meetings we will do everything we can to stop intrusive police filming. No longer will we ignore these attacks on our fundamental rights to freedom of expression. Enough is enough.
val.swain@yahoo.co.uk www.fitwatch.blogspot.com
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Yes in theory...
06.10.2007 04:34
Will the real English please stand up
Missing the point
06.10.2007 10:23
There is no such thing as FIT. It is just a concept which was developed in the aftermath of the CJB demonstrations in the 1990s. What we are dealing with is the Met's Public Order Intelligence Unit which feeds intelligence it gathers to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) and works with the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU).
Every police force gathers intelligence on threats to public order and I'm not convinced that what the police are doing today is any different.
There are three problems with Fitwatch. First, by taking photographs of the police and publishing them on the Internet may be satisfying but it is actually worse than what the police are doing. Secondly, although occasionally it may prevent the police getting the pictures they want, it is not having any effect other than possibly annoying individual officers. And thirdly, however much as disagree with them, are we actually saying that the police should not be involved in controlling public order? Some anarchists will no doubt take such a stance. But do we believe that the BNP should also be allowed to cause disruption without the police stopping them. Or indeed that companies can act in an illegal manner with impunity. Of course not.
Fitwatch misses the point: the legal remit of the police in this case is very clear – maintaining public order. It is the activities of NETCU, not NPOIU, which seem to go well beyond this remit. Although funded by the Home Office, NETCU is the creation of the ACPO and it has arbitrarily decided to do everything within its ability to target what it regards as political ‘extremists’. The faltering police campaign (Operation Achilles) against the animal rights movement was based on the premise that anyone who supported animal rights was an extremist and therefore fair game for the police. The recent failed attempt to stop Animal Aid (which is no sense can be regarded as extremist) by police - presumably acting under NETCU’s guidance - was fortunately stopped by the courts. What it demonstrated was that the police now regard believe who believe in animal welfare (probably the majority of the population) as extreme.
Thus the police have assumed this new role – combating what they define as ‘extremism’ rather than dealing with the manifestations of ‘extreme’ political actions such as riots and criminal behaviour. In dealing with animal rights activists, they are undoubtedly acting on behalf of the Government because groups such as SPEAK and SHAC are beginning to pose a serious threat to UK-based companies that experiment on animals. Unfortunately what the Home Office has done is given the police the green light to expand their function. The essential problem with any police force is that they are not very good at catching criminals and so what they tend to do is to criminalise the people they can catch. Had Operation Achilles succeeded and the animal rights movement in the UK disappeared, does anyone seriously believe that NETCU would have simply closed down?
There has never been any debate in Parliament or any law enacted which allows the police to tackle ‘extremism’ - although obviously Special Branch has always deal with ‘subversion’. What we should be doing is pointing out to politicians, such as Peter Hain and John Bercow, that 30 and 15 years ago respectively, they would have been regarded as legitimate targets for this new initiative by the police. We should also be saying to the police, that by being allowed to define what they mean by ‘extremism’ and to create this new job for themselves, means that they can no longer claim that they are above politics.
Anton
There is no such thing as FIT?
06.10.2007 15:08
Doug
Two suggestions for 'fighting FIT'
06.10.2007 19:14
1. Ask the police photographer / videoer for the Data Protection Act form that enables you to request copies of any photos / footage they take of you. They then have to stop what they're doing to fill the form out. If every activist did this and then followed through with a disclosure request, imagine the level of inconvenience it would cause.
2. File an official complaint to the IPCC against any intrusive behaviour by the police. Include shoulder numbers you have noted down of the relevant officer(s), and try to get other witnesses to back up your claims.
More valuable advice from:
"tell any photographers/videoers that you want their name and number so you can apply to get a copy of the photos of you they just took under the Data Protection Act - they must comply with at least a number - if they don't then report this to the senior officer - also ask them why they are photographing and what happens to the pictures and then approach the senior officer and ask him/her the same question -if you get the usual 'for evidence gathering purposes' point out that there is no unlawful activity going on adn why then are they taking mugshots - and try asking any other plod the same questions - its always amusing to see how emabarrassed they all become and that no-one knows what happens to the pictures or who views them"
Respect our privacy
Clarification
06.10.2007 19:23
I was merely suggesting that FIT is a concept not a unit, and certainly not a national unit. So far as I understand, in examining what went wrong (for the police) during the CJB protests, came a realisation that the police needed real-time 'forward intelligence' on the ground so that the riot units could react more quickly.
According to the Metropolitan Police at the time:
“Another change is the introduction of the Public Order Intelligence System to gather information on ‘potential troublemakers’. Teams of 12 specially trained officers will form a Forward Intelligence Team (FIT) who, operating in uniform, will seek to build a ‘rapport’ with ‘street activists’ so that people ‘likely to provoke disorder can be identified early in an event’. Prior to an ‘event’ assessments are provided by the Special Branch together with reports on ‘areas of tension’.”
Those involved in the No M11 campaign will remember the presence (if I recall correctly) of Inspector Barry Norman, Sergeant Mark Sully (sadly still around and still a sergeant) and PC Tony Brittan who were around before the FIT idea was mooted. When challenged they would identify themselves as being from the Met’s Public Order Intelligence Unit which still exists today:
So I am not suggesting that FITs don’t exist but that they do not appear to be formal units but ad hoc groupings of uniformed police formed for the occasion.
Anton
Real problems of FIT
07.10.2007 13:09
One of the things FIT Watch is attempting to do is to demystify and challenge their actions. Many people at events over the summer commented on the fact that it was good to have people challenging FIT and it made them feel stronger in their participation.
It is the psychological damage that is real from people who have had breakdowns as a result of harassment, to people who won't go to meetings or protests because of their presence. In recent years their behaviour has got worse (not that it was ever good) It is vital to oppose and resist these tactics and let them know we won't let them get away with this oppresive policing.
FIT Watch
e-mail:
defycops@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com
Yeah, but we need to challenge this
07.10.2007 14:24
The problem is two-fold, in my opinion.
First there is the harassment and intimidation that they love dishing out to activists, particularly those faces and names they have come to recognise from their various intelligence operations. It is beyond doubt that this tactic has caused psychological damage to CO11's 'targets'. Anyone who does doubt this should have a look at the psychological effects on one copper, who endured this treatment for no more than about 20 minutes (see Fitwatch blog). Activists have had to put up with it for hours even days at a time, intruding into private areas of work and family.
Secondly there is the fact that they are building up 'secret files' on anyone involved in protest or political dissent. Sure, they have always done this to some extent. But technology has provided the police with the capability to store far greater amounts of data and to process this data in new and interesting ways. And do more damage with it. This has implications not only for activists, but for anyone who has at any time been involved with a demonstration (especially one at which 'known activists' were also present, because they especially look for connectivity in the profiling).
As well as being useful in themselves, both of these tactics also have the effect of detering others from becoming involved in political activism. I know activists who can no longer face going on a demo and having to face the FIT. And many people who wont go on a demonstration for fear of their details going on a police database somewhere.
There is a 'culture of fear' issue here, that the police are exploiting and that we, really, should be challenging. And sure, it isn't going to be turned round by just a court case. We'll only be getting somewhere when the police are no longer able to harass activists and amass data with ease and impunity.
Me personally, I'm not prepared to put up with it any more. I will challenge what they do, and I'll do it in any way I can possibly get away with. Be that legally, physically, or by dishing up to them the same harassment they dish up to us. And judging from the reaction Fitwatch has had, I'm not the only one to be feeling like this.
So CO11 / FIT whatever you want to call yourself, you have been warned....
Val
FIT reactions to being photographed
06.11.2007 14:29
"It is beyond doubt that this tactic has caused psychological damage to CO11's 'targets'. Anyone who does doubt this should have a look at the psychological effects on one copper, who endured this treatment for no more than about 20 minutes (see Fitwatch blog). Activists have had to put up with it for hours even days at a time, intruding into private areas of work and family."
Yes indeed. I witnessed one particular police photographer's reaction to attempts made to photograph him at this year's DSEi protest.
In literally under five minutes he became extremely aggressive, exhibiting quite threatening behaviour. I don't doubt that if similar behaviour had been exhibited by a protester toward a police officer then an arrest would have ensued.
mike
Homepage:
http://fitwatch.tiltingatwindmills.org.uk