2007 - 2022



Mark Kennedy – Police Spy

Human rights violations are discovered to be commonplace within civic police force. The British State doesn’t care and the practice will continue. Laura Cameron Lewis has a plan.

It’s fair to say that intimacy isn’t something I ever thought I’d be sharing with the police.

I’ve made love with a number of people. I’ve fallen in love a few times, and then once in a big time. Then I gave birth some times. I can say unreservedly that the last of those things on that list was the most intimate and vulnerable thing I’ve ever done.

When I read that a woman had been tricked into bearing the child of an undercover police officer and that she spent 14 hours in the labour ward with him as part of his ‘undercover duties’, it feels like a violation of the most fundamental human trust.  It doesn’t get more intimate than that.  Rarely is a grown woman more vulnerable… physically, emotionally.  Her entire future life and right to a family life was at stake and, subsequently, ruined, 20 years ago by a man whose job it was to protect.

When the news starts reading like the script of an American spy-pulp-telly-drama, you have to start questioning the entire world’s grip on reality. Sadly, this is not a fantastical plotline from JJ Abrams’ noughties thriller, Alias, this is the true to life institutional practice of the metropolitan police of the UK.

Note, this is not some ‘black ops’ group. Nor the secret service.

This is our civil police force.

This kind of violation turns out to have been commonplace in the Met, who have admitted to the BBC that they were ‘expected, not ordered’ to ‘engage in relationships’. Fellow former Special Demonstration Squad officer Peter Francis told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that sex was “used by almost everybody who was serving in that unit”.  It turns out that the violation of a woman’s body and the creation of a child’s life isn’t a crime.  When the officer disappeared forever when the child was two years old, returning to his other wife and family who knew nothing of his other child or partner, the young woman and her fatherless son were heartbroken. It turns out that the violation of that child’s life and right to have a father are deemed to be within an acceptable code of behaviour for our law enforcers.

These women and children appear to have been viewed as ‘collateral’ damage, by undercover officers who kept other wives and other children secret and safely back in the comfort of their ‘real’ lives.  That the police do not view the abuse of innocent women and their children as a criminal act, perpetrated by themselves upon the citizens they are appointed to protect, is a fundamental break down of the social contract.

This woman was hardly a criminal.  The reason she was targeted?  She was an environmental campaigner.

Like most sane people, I believe in promoting environmental awareness and ecological sustainability. Talking about wee problems such as destroying our food supply, or scientifically evidenced issues that threaten public health such as underground coal gasification or fracking, are not instances of terrorism.  People raising awareness of these issues are doing a public service. Are people like me now considered, by officers within the police, to be a danger to public safety?  Even if someone was proven in an independent court of law to be a public danger, would any jury decide that person should be fair game to a randy police officer who needs an ‘in’ to their ecological grassroots?

But we’re not talking about a court, or a jury.  What has happened is that police officers have made these choices themselves, and the entire Metropolitan police has upheld that decision.  In fact, they’re still denying 10 other women who are seeking reparation after their lives were ruined by being sexually and emotionally exploited by undercover officers.

When faced with such a systemic abuse of power, it is hard not to respond in any other way than within the behaviour allowed by such a psychologically abusive situation.  It is difficult to avoid lowering your expectations and internalising this abuse. Who are we as women to think that we can engage in political campaigning or activism without being seen as collateral?

The questions we should be asking should not be directed at women, we should all be asking of ourselves ‘who are we?  What kind of society have we become that we allow our police to behave like this?’

This is reprehensible.  These women are not extremists. They are not dangerous.  They only want to be able to campaign and spread awareness of how society can be a better place.  The news of the admittance of liability by the Met comes in the same week that UK police were more heavy-handed than police in Hong Kong. In Parliament Square, renamed ‘Democracy Square’, people were arrested simply for participating in gatherings and discussions about how to create open democracy.

There is a pattern emerging. This year the government have also made it illegal to campaign during the year prior to election campaigns, which allows them to put through any contentious legislation, and the public cannot dissent or organise to petition against this.  At the Tory party conference the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced their intention to protect ‘British values’ from  ‘extremists’.  Given that we know the police already consider people with environmental and democratic views ‘extreme’, this leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed.

The Conservatives promise that their election manifesto will introduce ‘banning orders and extreme disruption orders’. Theresa May also said that ‘getting access to communications data – details of who called who and when, but not the content of the calls – was vital.’

These new powers will be employed by government ministers wherever they decide there is a ‘threat to democracy’ or ‘if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, or other criminal acts’.  Theresa May promises that, following such a ban, any membership or funding of a banned organisation would become a criminal offence.

Charity regulators are to police their members for activities that might fall under the broad headings of ‘public disorder’ or ‘threat to democracy’ and the police are to be given the powers to impose these extreme disruption orders on individuals using the same criteria.

Who defines democracy?  Is it the public who choose to gather together in civic space to define democracy themselves?  Or is it the police who can decide to arrest such members of the public on the basis that they are causing a ‘disorder’ and such ‘disorder is a ‘threat to democracy’?

You can see how quickly this new legislation could escalate to include the banning of all forms of debate, campaigning and dissent.

They now have the power to prevent any campaign during the entire election year.  They have to power to read your emails, monitor your phone calls, track your social networking activity, and now they want to make it possible to shut down debate and stop people from organising and coming together in a way that constitutes a ‘disorder’.

So if you find yourself wondering if there’s a balance to be struck between then need to protect people from terrorism and the need to protect human rights, the example of the police being ‘expected, not ordered’ to ‘engage in relationships’ with women shows you just how far over the line we already are.  When our police force consider it acceptable to stalk and target women sexually, violating fundamental human rights and destroying their right to have a family life, you begin to understand why it is a priority for the Tories to get us out of Europe and out of the European Commission of Human Rights.

So what, if anything, can we do about this? Protest and campaign? But we’re not allowed that during election time. Then choose who you’re going to vote for, except that the Sun, The Daily Mail and most of the rest of the mainstream press continue to promote the views of the government and, sadly, truly democratic alternatives like the Green Party get no coverage.  Organise yourselves to create democratic discussion and momentum, while you still can.  Publicise the things that are worrying you, talk to as many people as you can and tell them about the better alternatives out there.

As a last thought, I find myself wondering if we have to cultivate a new way of being and operating that is devoid of privacy – an ultra public existence.  Like teens who never knew the world before open surveillance, could we become our own form of open sousveillance, watching, recording and posting every undemocratic action from our police and our government.  If the entire public do it, they can hardly put us all under an ‘extreme disruption order’ can they?



Comments (0)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Sally says:

    My heartfelt sympathy goes to the women who were tricked by undercover officers into an intimate relationship, so, so cruel. But this is not just happened in London with the Met police. I live in East Lothian in Scotland and now can tell my story.

    To my absolute disbelief I too found surveillance equipment in my home and car. It has taken several weeks to absorb that all my telephone calls and conversations, my life with my child has been recorded, watched, listened to by other people for probably the past year.

    I believe there are two possible scenarios, either I was considered a ‘threat to democracy’ during the Scottish Referendum or because I am educating parents of the digital dangers our children face and in the process of developing a safe web for kids.

    I found this website http://www.targeted-individuals.com/

  2. It’s natural but we intend to pretend about it!

    Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

  3. Ian Patterson says:

    The behaviour of said police officers was absolutely reprehensible. It seems a clear violation of human rights; and I cannot imagine that most members of the group regularly identified by politicians as ‘hard-working people’ would condone it under any circumstances. In addition, the notion of creating statute law from a party-politically-defined platform of ‘British Values’ does seem inherently flawed.

  4. IF we had an HONEST government we would not have secrets.The cabinet meets every week at least once,all minutes should be published,anything that they want to put a secrecy notice on must not get one these 25 year 50 year 100 year notices must be done away with.If the government had integrity they would not have any secrets.Keeping anything from the public costs a great deal of money so an open and honest government would not have any secrets and save us lots of money.

    1. Dean Richardson says:

      As someone once said, people who hide things have something to hide. Secrecy is completely incompatible with justice or democracy.

      1. muttley79 says:

        That is what governments have saying for decades as they have been shredding civil liberties.

  5. maxi ker says:

    Government is a word that people with power and privilege have hidden behind for centuries. The same elite families and their yes men are so immersed in subterfuge that you will never be able to trust any person or organization with any kind of presentation of fair play especially when its regarding any business related to the ordinary man or woman in the street. There you go…..that’s me under surveillance.

    1. Dean Richardson says:

      You’re probably under surveillance just for visiting a site like Bella.

  6. ‘Terrorist threat’ has already been redifined in tbe US to include all dissenting voices on myriad subjects. What happens there seems to find its way here. The knock on effect to other civil rights is huge.
    Extreme authoritarian control has been finding its way through the back door for years in the name of protection. Once seemingly insignificant laws are passed, justified at the point of ‘impending threat’, constitutional change becomes almost welcomed by some with the full impact not obvious till later.
    It’s terrifying in its potential.

    1. Dean Richardson says:

      I can’t help thinking of Martin Niemoeller’s famous quote.

  7. kate says:

    This practise needs to be made illegal,not just as used against environmentalists involved in legal democratic dissent, but any women.

    Is it possible to bring a class action against the government or the police force? the police are acting as prostitutes being pimped by superiors, while the women are not really giving consent, but are sexually entrapped by police while acting lawfully. Possibly a human rights case that could be taken to EU?

    Politically motivated police sexual entrapment and sexual abuse could be made into a new offence, perhaps another kind of statutory rape.
    iie. ‘Statutory Rape of Environmental & Political Activists Act ‘ -to throw down the gauntlet – or milder versions such as ‘Police Sexual Entrapment Act’

    Could the Scottish Parliament make it illegal in Scotland? The SNP can get coverage in Scotland if it wants to, possibly all through UK.
    Many people would be grateful for leadership on this and proposed repressive laws.

    The UK is becoming an increasingly totalitarian state which barely tolerates democracy, and its not alone. UDI may become necessary to get out of UK . England seems to want to embrace fascism. Surely that is far more dangerous than UDI

    1. epicyclo says:

      That’s a good point.

      It was rape. The woman did not give consent to what happened.

  8. Jim says:

    The UK has lurched to the right with knee-jerk legislation being passed to address every real or imagined threat. The Police, particularly the Met, will always use the available law to its full extent, and beyond, and will always justify their actions on the grounds of expediency. That is why when Walter Wolfgang was thrown out of the Labour Party Conference in 2005, the police saw no problem in detaining him under anti-terrorism legislation. It seems that a fully paid up Labour Party member telling the Home Secretary that he is talking rubbish is, in the eyes of the Police, a threat to the security of the State. It is also why there must be strong and democratic overview of the Police. They are Public Servants, and we are the Public.
    In the USA several States are looking at the crime of ‘rape by deception’ or ‘rape by fraud’, where consensual sex is obtained by pretending to be someone else – cases in Massachusets and California have involved women waking up during sex, believing it to be with their partner (whom they went to sleep with) and then discovering that it is not.
    It seems to me that what the Police did here is rape by deception, pretending to be someone you are not in order to obtain sex. If they had managed to obtain money from the women involved then that would be simple pecuniary fraud, and a crime. But then, in this country money has always been more important than people.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.