Of course that's possible.

But equally this post could be fiction!

The Campaign Against The Arms Trade, which was involved in the anti-dsei protests, was seriously infiltrated according to The Sunday Times who ran an article shortly after the anti-dsei protests last year.

See:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/278079.html

CAAT statement:
 http://www.caat.org.uk/spying.php

Spreading mistrust in campaign organisations is of course another way of disrupting them and trying to make them ineffective.

Postings on indymedia, by their nature of being anonymnous, can be unreliable. The anti-dsei website should carry reports and news and any official statements, that way one can be certain of such information.

Also do note that while the anti-dsei campaign group has said it will not post details of meetings in public due to police harassment at the venues of meetings, such info has been published in schnews.org.uk - and I would also assume that such info also goes out on email to people on the anti-dsei email lists (or is sent to anyone who says they'd like to attend) - and so are not exactly secret, and it would be pretty easy for the police to find out. It certainly does not mean there is a 'spy' in the midst.

However with a published policing figure of £4-5 Million for the dsei protests last year I would imagine the police would certainly be interested in keeping tabs on any plans for 2005. Most open activist and campaign groups seem to operate anyway with the assumption that the police (or quite often journalists)will infiltrate meetings etc

The other interesting angle has come from a recent post "Undercover lawyer exposed at animal rights meeting", which details the alledged bungled attempt by a lawyer from the firm Clifford Chance to persuade activists to intensify the London campaign against State Street Bank, which would enable the law firm Clifford Chance (as State Streets lawyers) to take legal action against various animal rights organisations including the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign.

See:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286523.html

Which posts would you say are suspicious? It's probably safe to assume that BAe haven't stopped spying since they were exposed, and that organising against them should be conducted bearing that in mind.

The meeting that is mentioned above was not a closed meeting in the first place. The prsence of the FIT at public meetings is not new. It is new for them to stand inside the royal festival hall.

This doesn't mean that someone involved in Disarm isn't a spy, but we can be over cautious.

What benefit would the police/BAE have in spreading rumour that they are being visited by activists? Companies tend to want to play down negative publicity not beef it up. That's why we have such a media black out on most forms of direct action. They don't usually want other people "getting ideas" or for people in the general public to question the validity of their work.

This is a crucial threat! Disarm DSEI must suspend all activity while conducting an internal security investigation, interrogating each activist individually to determine their ideological soundness and uncover any inconsistencies. And perhaps some sort of camp could be set up to detain any spies that are found?