| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 1229 undercover police. Why? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 14 2014, 08:02 AM (1,496 Views) | |
| papasmurf | Oct 14 2014, 08:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to this on page 9 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/an-inspection-of-undercover-policing-in-england-and-wales.pdf An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales © HMIC 2014 ISBN: 978-1-78246-515-7 From the data that we received we consider the total number of undercover officers to be 1,229. I find it VERY difficult to believe there is a genuine need for that number of police officers to be working undercover. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| papasmurf | Oct 14 2014, 08:56 PM Post #41 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are no such meetings where I live, at all. You are completely out of touch if you think that is what happens. You are quite frankly talking out of your backside. I know every CID officer in the area by sight and most of them to talk to. It is the close relationship between police officers both high and low ranking, uniform, CID an specialists with neighbourhood watch that has got the crime rate to the low level it is, and the reason it stays that way. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 14 2014, 08:59 PM Post #42 |
|
Deleted User
|
. My friends son is undercover plod and afaik you have got it just about right. |
|
|
| Tigger | Oct 14 2014, 09:06 PM Post #43 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not wrong there Steve, Mrs Tigger said I'd get no more sex until I put up the shelves she bought in 1998, I lied and said I had put them up and got my end away, when she found out they were still in the box I didn't get any for several weeks. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 14 2014, 09:14 PM Post #44 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I will try one more time I will type slowly, some of your local cops may operate in plain clothes like anywhere else they may know you, they may talk to you, they may have gone to school with you, you may drink in the same pub as them and socialise with you but that does not matter as they are not under cover cops, they are cops out of uniform or off duty CID does not mean UC. Under Cover means under cover they are not known locally by anyone, specially selected drafted in borrowed from other forces because they are not known as they are no ruddy good and at great risk if someone knows who and what they are.. Their task is to get on the inside and obtain inside information which may take months or even years to do, there are not enough of them IMO |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 14 2014, 09:19 PM Post #45 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And a very difficult job it is too and dangerous, not a task that anyone can do many applicants never the grade. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Oct 14 2014, 10:00 PM Post #46 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah as if * But in 1967 it was a bigger offence. I remember some guy getting jailed for a series of such conquests. The latent conspiracy theorist in me says they changed the law just in time for Charles to con Diana into what was always a sham marriage to him. But I digress. * I mean "Colin" FFS, a real knicker elastic tightener that one. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 14 2014, 10:34 PM Post #47 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Offering to pay and then refusing afterwards could fit the bill, but it was treated as a civil debt. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Oct 15 2014, 12:41 AM Post #48 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Surely a bill of sale would be the criteria here, word of mouth between two bods cannot be enough evidence.? |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Oct 15 2014, 07:56 AM Post #49 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"I have been VERY specific..." Actually you had me fooled on that score. Until you actually came out with your second paragraph in the post I quote, I thought you were being quite obscure, and I found it difficult to work out what the hell you were on about ... So your beef is that policemen are being used to covertly infiltrate "legal" eco-terrorist groups whose members are being encouraged, some might say incited, to acts of trespass, criminal damage, and worse ? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 08:53 AM Post #50 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No my "beef" is undercover police officers being used to infiltrate organisations whose only "crime" is embarrassing the police and/or government. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 15 2014, 11:02 AM Post #51 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
.......... and pose no threat to society. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 11:05 AM Post #52 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Precisely. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 15 2014, 11:14 AM Post #53 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How does one judge whether the number 1229 is significant or otherwise? I would not be shocked to learn that the Police have a list of 5,000 potential terrorists. I would also not be surprised to learn that there are few hundred dodgy east europeans trafficking girls or washing cash or cutting dope. The number 1229 does not stir an eye lid. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 11:19 AM Post #54 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
RJD that is 1229 undercover police officers infiltrated into organisations NOT 1229 police officers engaged on surveillance. There just are not that many criminal/terrorist organisations operating in Britain. (It is very dangerous and very unwise to put more than one undercover police officers into an organisation unless they are posing as a couple. (That does happen but not very often.) |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 15 2014, 11:22 AM Post #55 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is to be established, and many organisations are infiltrated to be used for political purposes. by the evil intended. Information is received and followed up and we are not in a positionto know what it was or why. Even the Prime minister will have a security record, Harrold Wilson certainly didas willall union leaders. Every MP or other person involved in politics has their backgroung researched, with the authority of Parliament, and their file kept up to date. How do you think the security forces are identifying the current suspected terrorisst leading to their arrests, and preventing terrorist acts? Whinge away , tie their hands, concern yourself with your own idealistic ways, but if or when the next attack takes place please dont complain that the state itself has been negligent in not finding them before it happened. I think the loss of a little bit of privacy is well worth the returns, |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 11:29 AM Post #56 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The police/spook infiltrating harmless organisation has a political purpose? This is Britain not a totalitarian state. It was bad enough back in the 1960s when spooks rocked up at a folk club I used to go to. (they were somewhat obvious.) There really were a lot of "dangerous subversives" and "terrorists" in that club. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 15 2014, 11:32 AM Post #57 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I still do not see your yardstick? |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 15 2014, 03:55 PM Post #58 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Im not paranoid about the issue, and they are all authorised and properly politically supervised with very many brave men and women involved. I expect they have a record on you PAPA. for I think your a subversive,
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 04:05 PM Post #59 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My "yardstick" is undercover officers being used to infiltrate organisations that are merely embarrassing the police and/or government. In other words organisation exercising their democratic right to criticise people in power and authority. You may be happy with the massive waste of taxpayers money, I am not. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 04:16 PM Post #60 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"They" have had large file on me for a long time as they have on anyone who has signed the official secrets act and/or in old terminology had a positively vetted security clearance. Both apply to myself and my wife, as it did to my mother. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 15 2014, 04:26 PM Post #61 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If they were infiltrating right wing organisations I take it that would be perfectly acceptable to you. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 15 2014, 04:28 PM Post #62 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think he's miffed coz they are not
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 04:35 PM Post #63 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it would not. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 15 2014, 04:38 PM Post #64 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Have you looked under your bed lately.? The undercover numbers may hav gone up by one. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 15 2014, 04:47 PM Post #65 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You and the rest of us have no idea what organisation group or body is harmful or harmless to us, or if that gathering is used as a cover for a small handful of people or individual that is or suspected of being a risk to you and I. To assume that you can judge who is or what should not be investigated is crass absurdity and sheer arrogant folly on your part, our Universities are supposed to be peaceful tranquil places of learning but are a recruiting ground for our spies of the future to keep you safe, those who would do us harm and have done us harm have also been recruited there and allegedly still are As for terrorist organisation at large in our communities I think the number of arrests and convictions over the years proves you totally wrong again, it took 30 years and many brave men and women to infiltrate the IRA from top to bottom, and you will never know who they were or if they survived. Do you think the spying game stops for tea and crumpets at 4pm 36 hour week and no working on a Sunday, not likely it never stops has not for hundreds of years and never will Street Wise my |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 15 2014, 04:48 PM Post #66 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course I believe you LOB Edited by Stan Still, Oct 15 2014, 04:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| jaguar | Oct 15 2014, 05:47 PM Post #67 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You have lost me there, what organisations are embarrassing the police and/or government, Oh sorry you can't tell us as you have signed the official secrets act. Who are you to say they are not infiltrating child abuse, drug smuggling, illegal weapons, plots to murder, commit armed robbery etc etc. You say there is a significant number of undercover police operation that have come to light that have precisely NOTHING to do with criminality or terrorism of any kind, do you want them to publish the UC operations they are involved in. If you can't see the threats that are that are all around us, I suggest you turn your internet off, join the real world, and stop your fantasy conspiracy theories. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 06:28 PM Post #68 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unless you have been somewhere out of communication for the last couple of years undercover police officers being infiltrated into organisations that have NO criminal and NO terrorist connections has been headline news on and off as has their fathering of children by deception in the process. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 15 2014, 06:34 PM Post #69 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was going to say something, but I too have signed the Official Secrets Act as hundreds of thousands of others have done over the years, and the rules of the Forum ban me from saying ![]() yes, they do.... Edited by johnofgwent, Oct 16 2014, 07:05 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| jaguar | Oct 15 2014, 07:32 PM Post #70 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess I must have been " out of communication for the last couple of years", so I ask again, what organisations are embarrassing the police and/or government, You are always the first to ask for a link, so what is the link because the official line is although Inspectors are refusing to detail individual operations, they do say the undercover officers had been targeted at small-time criminals selling drugs or stolen goods on the street through to paedophiles and terrorists. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 15 2014, 07:40 PM Post #71 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are numerous, many charities who have now been muzzled BY LAW from even carrying on with their normal campaigning in the run up to the general elections. This notice has recently appeared on the governments epetitions website:- e-petitions will be taking a break on 30 March 2015 as Parliament prepares for the General Election It is disgraceful that many organisations peacefully and constructively criticising government and the police have been infiltrated by undercover police on fishing expeditions to TRY and undermine their credibility. That is NOT what should be happening in a democracy. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 15 2014, 08:01 PM Post #72 |
|
Deleted User
|
Name six of them....
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Oct 16 2014, 06:55 AM Post #73 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"That is to be established" My thoughts exactly. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Oct 16 2014, 07:03 AM Post #74 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If a charity is being "muzzled" for criticism of the government then what should happen is its assets should be seized and its trustees should be arrested and tried for fraud. Why ? Because one of the REQUIREMENTS for establishing a charity - and I speak as one who has registered one with the charity commissioners and gone through ALL the paperwork with a magnifying glass - is that they refrain from any involvement in political matters. And criticism of the government is considered by the Charity Commissioners to be involvement in political matters bringing one's charitable status into question. There is a bloody good reason Amnesty International UK is split into TWO legally separate enties, one charitable, one NOT. Who are these Charitable Bodies ? I wish to lay the allegation of fraud at their door and have their affairs investigated, as is my right under English Law. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 16 2014, 07:09 AM Post #75 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is not a yardstick, it is just unsubstantiated opinion. On what yardstick do you claim 1200 too many? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 16 2014, 07:13 AM Post #76 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is perfectly legal and legitimate for a charity to express concerns about emergent properties of government policy. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300222/cc9text.pdf Key points about campaigning and political activity •Legal requirement: to be a charity an organisation must be established for charitable purposes only, which are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political. •Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. •Legal requirement: however, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity. (Section 3.5 provides a fuller explanation.) •There may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support the charity’s purposes. A charity may choose to focus most, or all, of its resources on political activity for a period. The key issue for charity trustees is the need to ensure that this activity is not, and does not become, the reason for the charity’s existence. •Charities can campaign for a change in the law, policy or decisions (as detailed in this guidance in section 2.4) where such change would support the charity’s purposes. Charities can also campaign to ensure that existing laws are observed. •Legal requirement: however, a charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad. •Legal requirement: in the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties is balanced. A charity must not give support or funding to a political party, nor to a candidate or politician. •A charity may give its support to specific policies advocated by political parties if it would help achieve its charitable purposes. However, trustees must not allow the charity to be used as a vehicle for the expression of the political views of any individual trustee or staff member (in this context we mean personal or party political views). •Legal requirement: as with any decision they make, when considering campaigning and political activity charity trustees must carefully weigh up the possible benefits against the costs and risks in deciding whether the campaign is likely to be an effective way of furthering or supporting the charity’s purposes. •Legal requirement: when campaigning, charity trustees must comply not only with charity law, but other civil and criminal laws that may apply. Where applicable they should also comply with the Code of the Advertising Standards Authority. •A charity can campaign using emotive or controversial material, where this is lawful and justifiable in the context of the campaign. Such material must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base. •The principles of charity campaigning and political activity are the same, whether the activity is carried out in the United Kingdom or overseas. Edited by papasmurf, Oct 16 2014, 07:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 16 2014, 10:23 AM Post #77 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm thinking Greenpeace, Fathers4Justice, Animal Rights (R&D), Cruel Sports (Fox Hunting), etc. Environmental groups pose no serious threat to society imo. I'd be critical of the MET if it wasn't infiltrating Religious extremists, organised crime, or Wacko organisations - like the CBI, that have the intention of harming or exploiting society. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 16 2014, 04:08 PM Post #78 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I fully agree and those that assume that all people involved in all and any organisation are all law abiding is very very mistaken, one cannot be sure of what really goes on behind closed doors. If there is any reasonable suspicion the job of the spooks and under cover cops is to get through those doors and find out if the suspicions are true or not. What embarrasses the cops and spooks is not knowing until its too late |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 16 2014, 04:13 PM Post #79 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Some Animal Rights Activists are not adverse to committing crime and using violence, members have been convicted of serous crimes and imprisoned |
![]() |
|
| jaguar | Oct 16 2014, 04:30 PM Post #80 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Debbie Vincent says she has been made a scapegoat and criticises the Metropolitan police's use of an undercover officer. An animal rights campaigner convicted of taking part in a conspiracy to blackmail the research company Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). The campaign of terror involved the use of improvised explosive devices and the desecration of graves. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2606974/Former-soldier-animal-rights-commander-jailed-six-years-campaign-terror-against-animal-testing-company.html#ixzz3GKHOq2bm Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook. Thank the Lord for under cover Police, should be more of them,
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





7:35 PM Jul 11