Mark “Marco” Jacobs was unmasked as an undercover police officer in 2011.
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472122.html
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472349.html
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472122.html https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472349.html
Since then a number of activists are taking legal action against South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police in an attempt to hold the system to account.
Both sets of Police lawyers have attempted to obstruct justice, giving a “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” defence.
On Wednesday 25th March there will be a hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice attempting to strike out this non-defence.
The night before there will be holding a protest outside Cardiff Central Police Station to draw attention to the case and the problem of undercover political policing in general.
Protest outside Cardiff Central Police Station, King Edward VIII Avenue, CF10
Tuesday 24th March, 6pm – 8pm
Then a Solidarity picket of the court before the case starts.
Picket outside Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, WC2 (Holborn or Temple tube)
Wednesday 25th March, 9am – 10am
Both sets of Police lawyers have attempted to obstruct justice, giving a “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” defence.
On Wednesday 25th March there will be a hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice attempting to strike out this non-defence.
The night before there will be holding a protest outside Cardiff Central Police Station to draw attention to the case and the problem of undercover political policing in general.
Protest outside Cardiff Central Police Station, King Edward VIII Avenue, CF10
Tuesday 24th March, 6pm – 8pm
Then a Solidarity picket of the court before the case starts.
Picket outside Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, WC2 (Holborn or Temple tube)
Wednesday 25th March, 9am – 10am
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
well meaning but meaningless
13.03.2015 23:43
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!
not being funny
@not being funny
14.03.2015 01:20
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.
Auntie Anti
aunti
14.03.2015 20:22
i wish you success in your campaign.
however, as most anarchists practice polyamory. perhaps you ought to question that.
not being funny
Appologies
15.03.2015 02:38
I also appologise for the casual racism in my first post - most muslims are not terrorists and police surveilance of Islamic groups is excessive.
not being funny
Not Funny
16.03.2015 12:55
Some things don't change it seems.
Not Joking
Frustration
17.03.2015 10:49
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.
Revolutionary Articulate
and but?
17.03.2015 20:46
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.
being funny not
polyamory
18.03.2015 04:55
polyamorous pete
@ being funny not
22.03.2015 19:11
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.
Revolutionary Articulate