the tables maybe turning at last

well done on standing up against this obvious police intimidation tactic

keep it up

err, 1-0.

Really glad to see those bullies put on the spot in court.
However I can't help feeling a bit disappointed that the very legality of what the fit are doing is not being called into question. ie: that them ordering this civilian lacky to spy on us so obsessively is acting outside the execution of their duty and wasting a great deal of tax payer's money to boot. Was this issue ever raised in court? Did the fit say why it's so vital for them to act in this way? Is there a lawyer in the house who could advise? thanks

It is about time that repressive police practices were met with resistance. This is a great day for democracy and protest. Of course, there's a million miles further to go, but you have to start somewhere... Well done to all concerened.

i've seen several trials now where police claim assault, and then in trial video evidence has established that they are clearly perjuring themselves in the witness box. this has happened in socpa trials where people guilty of nothing more than peaceful protest have been accused of an offence that can carry a substantial prison sentence. what do these lying scum think they're doing?

it seems inordinately difficult to prosecute these lying bastards, but maybe fitwatch, as part of their wonderful work, could consider beginning to pull together a database of such dodgy witnesses. this could be made available to defendants to help discredit lying officers' witness statements in future cases.

i know police monitor indymedia reports. maybe it's only the lying bastards that do this monitoring job, but if any of the few good apples that otherwise spoil a rotten barrel are out there, i'm sure they'd agree that these cops are a disgrace to their uniforms and should be hounded out of the force.

information is power.

I agree that the police seem to be allowed to perjure themselves but would go further. With hardly any exceptions the police seem to be able to break the law with impunity and lack any public accountability.

You would think that when they gun down innocent persons, for example, the very least that might happen is that one of them would lose their job but no not even that. Can anyone actually explain why there is this double standard in law?

... then how can anyone trust the "intelligence" that they are tasked to provide?

The DJ had no problem with people being photographed by cops as they go into meetings. Stasi behaviour is now approved by low ranking judges and senior prosecutors.

The law is not going to save us from the slow slide into fascism, thats for shit sure.

i think everything has been said, but i still wanna congratulate you and encourage you to keep up the good work!

will there be FITwatch @ climate change demo? autonomous bloc maybe? x

Brilliant stuff. massive respect.

police officers have mortgages and debts too. They are likely to be hit by rising interest rates and a reduction in the availability of credit. A further issues will be escalating food and fuel prices. Whilst the government may bail them out as much as they can with higher wages these are unlikely to be sufficient.

When faced with financial hardship how loyal to the state will they remain. Many police officers are probably unhappy anyway that having signed up as crime fighters (or for bullying opportunities) they find themselves left in large numbers guarding the institutions and beneficiaries of a state that is so corrupt that corruption goes unnoticed


remember that the police are a dynamic force, not a fixed entity and recovering police officers could become our strongest allies

of course if the police do become sufficiently disillusioned the state can also employs mobs of unemployed NEETS and criminal gangs to take their place or they can rely on private security guards

but will this be enough?

with blackbyrd. one of my work colleagues is an ex-cop now working on climate change issues (community preparations for the worst!). on numerous protests security guards have defected and resigned in disgust at what they were being asked to do (or at least, they used to). in a police van after being arrested at Faslane, one sergeant was enthusiastically denouncing the BAe arms deals to Saudi and proposing radical land reform (a couple of acres each, randomly allocated through a lottery, then you arrange with your 'neighbours' what to do with it). not that i believe in the possibility of a 20th century style 'revolution' in the UK, but it is always important to remember that the defection of security forces has always been a factor of 'successful' popular revolt.

The scum in the Police will always be the enemy. They are not that bright anyway, why else go into the Police? On training they are basically told to protect the rich and upper echelons in society. This they do with great gusto and undue deference.

Who do they show bias towards? No one from the council estates that is for sure.

Remember that when Thatcher came into power, the first thing she did was give the pigs a pay rise. This ensured loyalty for the miners battle.

In order to enforce the law the police establishment has to employ constables in its service who break the law continually, and in their turn, these officers have to defend themselves against people who use the law to bring them to account.

The para-military machine is not composed of smaller unit machines which respond with professional exactitude but of officers who, in the majority have a right wing ideology. These officers on the one hand act out the orders of their senior officers, but on the other are bound together in the lower ranks by their own personal and political objectives and their own sense of hegemonous protection.

Officers express a personal ideology which is rooted in male violence; which propounds a detestation of independent or intelligent women; which is racist; which is publically homophobic; which has a profound mistrust of intelligence and intellectualism; which is anti-socialist; which believes in the authority of the State above all other intstitutions; which is hierarchical and based upon discipline and orders rather than debate; which thrives upon secrecy and resents criticism of any kind, while destroying any public symbolism of its illegality or deviance. Broadly speaking this is the culture and ideology of fascism.

The State in our society does not espouse fascism as its ideology but an authoritarianism which demands a high degree of order and control. However, fascist ideology at the base of the police force serves the purpose of the State and the structural requirements of senior officers.

It'd be great to see FIT Watch at the climate march.

However, we musn't go down the dangerous path of thinking only a few people do FIT Watch activities - that it is their speciality. Anyone can do FIT Watch, in any way they want.

We have to act together to show we will no longer stand for this intimidatory policing. We need to get to the point where it is automatic that whenever we see a police camera man we try and stop them from taking photos.

This week has shown that we are fighting and we are winning. It is fantastic to see all the support we've received both here and on the blog since we started last year. However we need this support to translate itself into solidarity on the streets if we are to win.

Don't forget, most of them are Freemasons and look at www.freemasonrywatch.org to see what they get up to with this.

Look to the Lodges.

was overthrown by republicans and workers. Despite an initial violent response by nervous coppers the police later stood down mainly because they were subject to severe hardship as a result of the economic crisis. This forced King Louis-Phillippe to have to beat it quicktime. Given the prevalence of Freemasonry in France I would imagine some of them also used funny handshakes but it didn't prevent them from going fuck this for a job

It's great to win. Essentially the court ruled that obstructing a police photographer (who is a civilian) is not an obstruction of a police officer. Also, a police officer can't claim to be a victim of obstruction, when the defendant was trying only to obstruct the cameraman.
This decision doesn't make all Fitwatch obstruction lawful, but it does make it harder for the Met to get convictions for obstructing civilian FIT cameramen.
So it is very good news, not just to those on trial, but for all Fitwatchers who get stuck in and block FIT cameras.
Many thanks to all those who came to show support and solidarity
Commiserations to Discombe and Wettone and the rest of the CO11 bunch. Not had a good week, have you lads?

steve discombe a drug user by any chance?

i dont think its discombe who's on drugs
the prosecution barrister was slurring his speech
scumbag

my defence brief ripped him to shreds

a great day for fitwatch

I wrote this article for Big Issue. It went in before the hearing in London at the end of November.
Greg


A trial is continuing in London of a Welsh political activist arrested outside a public meeting to campaign against the arms trade.

Val Swain, 42, allegedly held a piece of black card in front of a police camera as it filmed people arriving at the University of London.

The meeting had been called to protest against the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition, in London Docklands. DSEi, as the world’s biggest arms fair, is always a magnet for protesters.

As people arrived they were filmed by officers of the police Forward Intelligence Team (FIT).

Swain is charged with obstructing a police cameraman. During her trial, which is due to resume at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on November 29, Swain will argue that the filming was intrusive and unlawful.

Being filmed by police is becoming an increasing familiar experience for political protesters.

And what is worrying more and more protesters is the use of anti-terror laws to – as they claim – “stifle” protest; to deter people who might be naturally concerned about getting a police file.

At the 2003 DSEi event, for instance, a number of campaigners were searched by police using section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

A journalist was stopped under the same law in September 2007 outside the Dorchester Hotel, where arms traders were dining. Another NUJ member, on showing their press card, was looked up and told, wrongly, that they had been arrested at an equivalent protest in 2005. The NUJ is investigating reports that FIT units are carrying a ‘bingo card’ of people to stop, “on which independent journalists may appear”.

One activist, who asked not to be named, said: “Political dissent and terrorism seem to be treated in very similar ways. And those involved in political protest are very often made to feel like extremists and terrorists.”

The case of anti-Iraq war demonstrator Brian Haw seems to back up this claim. The Metropolitan Police spent nearly £27,000 dismantling Haw’s peace camp in May 2006.

The law used against him was Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which puts limits on demonstrations near the Houses of Parliament.

But the threat of “terror” came up when the force’s lawyer, Hugo Keith, argued that “what concerns the Metropolitan Police…is the risk his unique position in Parliament Square may be exploited by terrorists wanting to strike a devastating blow to the heart of democracy”.

The case eventually went to the High Court where, in August 2007, District Judge Quentin Purdy dismissed the charge against the protestor, saying Haw had no case to answer. Restrictions placed on his protest were ruled unlawful.

Concerns about possible abuse of anti-terror legislation first became a matter of debate in dramatic fashion during the 2005 Labour Party conference.

Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old party member, had shouted “Nonsense!” during a speech by Jack Straw. Security guards bundled him out of the hall. When he tried to go back in he was briefly detained by police under anti-terror legislation.

Wolfgang had been a refugee from Nazi Germany. The symbolism of the event could not have been greater. Apologies flowed in, from Tony Blair down.

Wolfgang reappeared last month at the head of a Stop the War march in London which the Government, through the police, had tried to ban. The ban – sought under an 1839 law designed to stop people impeding MPs or peers on their way to Parliament – was ignored by at least 5,000 people.

New laws don’t just affect activists or journalists.

The Government plans a National Identity Register – outlined in the Identity Cards Act 2006 - which will contain vast amounts of personal information on us all.

According to the Home Office, both public and private organizations will be able to check the data on the register - information that will include not only your name and address, but your fingerprints, iris patterns and facial image.

The NUJ has already come out against it, passing a resolution last year which pointed out: “ID cards will do nothing to protect us from suicide bombers (who usually are not worried about keeping their identity secret) but will help the authorities to keep a close eye on ‘trouble makers’, militant shop stewards, campaigners, and so on.

“Campaigning and investigative journalists can also expect to be targeted by this measure in order to monitor and hinder their work.”

The union is now affiliated to NO2ID, the UK-wide campaign opposing the ID card and National Identity Register.

This summer, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith brought in new regulations which give nearly 800 public bodies the right to access telephone records.

A small number of people have questioned whether it is a good thing that people from organizations such as the Environment Agency, Welsh Ambulance Service or your local council can find out whom you’ve been calling, but it has been astonishing how quietly the new legislation has slipped through. Lib-Dem spokesman on Home Affairs, Nick Clegg, has noted the telephone laws went through ‘with no meaningful public or parliamentary debate’.

Two years ago, the debate over detention without charge of terror suspects became a political hot potato for then Prime Minister Tony Blair, resulting in his only parliamentary defeat when he tried to extend the limit to 90 days. The Government is now reconsidering an extension beyond 28 days, even though Britain's most senior police officer, Sir Ian Blair, recently admitted there had not been a case in which the police had required more than 28 days to question a suspect.

Swansea Lib Dem county councillor and Police Authority member Claire Waller has been one of those to speak out against Government arguments that the public must be ready to accept reductions in their civil liberties in the fight against terror.

“Sacrificing British liberties in the name of a ‘war on terror’ is self-defeating in the extreme,” she said. “The terrorists want us to change our way of life. That is their objective.”

And, according to Liberty’s director Shami Chakrabati: “Most sensible people know that privacy cannot be absolute and support necessary and proportionate intrusions for tightly defined purposes and under protection of law.

“However, a society that doesn’t value and protect the privacy of the individual is one without intimacy, honesty and trust.

“By moving away from human rights’ principles adopted in the aftermath of the great dictators of the last century, Government has taken us too far down that dangerous road.”

-ends-

whatiswales.blogspot.com