Mark Stone/Kennedy - Looking Beyond THe Grassy Knoll
All Power Corrupts | 18.01.2011 14:01 | World
The case of undercover cop Mark Stone/Kennedy last week saw an epic feeding frenzy by the hyenas of the corporate media, who were supplied with plenty of info and ammunition by people within the activist movement. While these people, traitors or idiots depending on your perspective, had much to say to the journalists, there was almost no original comment on the Kennedy affair within the movement. Indymedia was clogged with corporate re-posts and stupid comments, including some which were sympathetic to Kennedy and at least one seeking journalistic cash. One of the very few exceptions was a piece authored by ‘The Boys From The Grassy Knoll’ and entitled ‘The View From The Grassy Knoll’.
The Grassy Knoll piece received very positive comments from ordinary activists and appears to be the basis for a statement on the Kennedy affair by Berlin Anarchist Black Cross. Yet it caused an unprecedented censorship campaign by Indymedia moderators, which was led by those who had uncovered Kennedy and their close associates. Not only was the article ‘hidden’ (i.e. removed from the Indymedia newswire) along with comments agreeing with it, but any re-posts were vigorously pursued across the worldwide Indymedia network and removed. This was however not enough for those trying to censor the Grassy Knoll piece. When articles are ‘hidden’ on Indymedia they still remain in some form and can therefore be found when using a search engine. Indymedia received a request from ‘114defence’ for a “full hide”, a complete and absolute removal of the post from Indymedia’s internet terrain. As with every other request received from the same milieu, Indymedia were happy to accede.
The reason given for this unprecedented Indymedia censorship was that the Grassy Knoll piece supposedly contained “highly personal info”. Does it? The article names only four people – Mark Kennedy, Simon Lewis, Sophie Stevens, and (in passing) John Jordan. Kennedy’s name is obviously well known, but so are those of Lewis and Stevens, thanks to their own self-promotion (Stevens even appeared on ‘BBC Newsnight’). Jordan is another avid self-promoter, but so far as is known is not linked directly to the Kennedy affair (he will be discussed later). The piece also names Kennedy’s boat, but that has been named previously on Indymedia, as it has been since in the corporate media, and what would activists care about that anyway? Looking over the piece it is hard to see where this damaging “highly personal info” is. More than likely Indymedia were accommodating a request from someone who was not happy with the article’s critical analysis and the portrait it paints of certain sections of the ‘eco-activist’ scene.
Like the earliest corporate articles the raw information on which the Grassy Knoll piece is based could very well have been taken from earlier postings on Indymedia itself. With Mark Kennedy having now sold his story to the ‘Mail On Sunday’ there is now a massive more amount of “highly personal info” in the public arena than has ever appeared on Indymedia, and certainly far more than was contained in the censored Grassy Knoll piece.
Kennedy quite clearly lies throughout the ‘Mail’ interview, but in the light of its publication, and in light of more serious corporate journalism, the analysis given in the Grassy Knoll piece is worth re-examining.
The claims made in the Grassy Knoll article, which some clearly agree with and others find controversial, can be broken down as follows:
1) That many good quality photos of Kennedy existed, and were in the possession of his close friends, which were not posted to Indymedia.
2) That one of the Ratcliffe defendants, Simon Lewis, contacted Kennedy sometime after he was uncovered as a cop and asked for his help.
3) The founder of the so-called ‘Clown Army’ John Jordan was a “Special Branch tout”.
4) That the group who uncovered Kennedy as a cop knew his whereabouts, but would not give them out to the general movement.
5) That posters on Indymedia have accused the group who uncovered Kennedy of some form of unspoken agreement whereby he would protect them as best he could and they in return would let him walk away, leave his boat alone, not post their archive of photographs and personal information to the net, and not disclose his whereabouts or those of his family.
Looking at these claims individually, in respect of Point 1, there have been numerous claims on Indymedia that there were hundreds of photographs of Kennedy in existence, many of which were on display at a 40th birthday party he held shortly before being unmasked. Some of those photos, much better than were posted to Indymedia, have appeared in the corporate press and on ‘Newsnight’. Indeed it would be strange if during seven years those closest to Kennedy did not accumulate photos of him. There also appear to have been many photos circulating on ‘Facebook’ and on a ‘69ers’ website set up specifically to display photos taken at Kennedy’s birthday party. It seems to this writer that it is probably true that many photos of Kennedy exist and that they are held (or were held) by his closest friends.
In respect of Point 2, Simon Lewis taped himself talking to Kennedy and these tapes were given to ‘BBC Newsnight’, so we know that this contact took place, and we know the nature of that contact. As has also been said in the Grassy Knoll piece we also know that the contact with Kennedy was at best unnecessary and has led the corporate media to spin the story so as to present Kennedy as sympathetic to those he spied upon.
To long-standing activists it would be surprising if the claim that John Jordan was a “Special Branch tout” was controversial. While involved with ‘Reclaim the Streets’ Jordan admitted to having had meetings with Special Branch, which continued even after he was told to stop speaking to them by fellow activists. From this writers point of view the facts surrounding the matter are well established and we should be suspicious of anyone trying to rewrite history in Jordan’s favour.
There have been repeated claims on Indymedia that Kennedy’s whereabouts were known around the time he was exposed. People close to his exposers have argued on Indymedia that they needed to protect his family from adverse attention, implying that their whereabouts (and his) were certainly known. Kennedy’s word counts for very little, but his account claims that he was tracked down to his home address in Ireland and telephoned there. It seems ridiculous that those he betrayed would just let him walk away without having any idea where he was going. According to Kennedy’s publicist Max Clifford, the ex-cop is currently holed-up near LA, and it seems unlikely that those who exposed him know his address, but it seems probable that at some point in the past they did know where he was, certainly at the very least they knew that he was in Ireland.
Various accusations that a deal or agreement was made with Kennedy were made by posters on Indymedia rather than by the Grassy Knoll article. This accusation has clearly caused upset, yet in the form presented in the Grassy Knoll piece is it really so unreasonable or so damning? We make unspoken agreements all the time, knowing for example that if we throw a brick at a cop on a demo we’ll be beaten to the ground, arrested, and sent to prison for a long time. Having lived alongside them for so long, Kennedy clearly knows a great deal about those he was spying on and vice versa. He would know lots of personal details and perhaps have information about misdemeanours not divulged to his bosses. Is it so unreasonable to assume that his exposers might be reluctant to do him all the damage they could in the hope that he will refrain from doing the same? Apart from exposing him, for which they deserve the fullest praise, this group of friends have said very little about Kennedy. As is claimed, they certainly let him go on his way unharmed, and there is evidence they deliberately sought to hide details of his boat. They have also certainly protected his family (much more than Kennedy has done.) Kennedy does not seem to have any ill will for this group, and the reverse is true in respect of some of them, and while he was prepared to publically name other activists in his interview, the group who exposed him were afforded anonymity. An uneasy ‘pax’ does seem to exist.
In view of the revelations since its publication, it may be time to take another look at the Grassy Knoll piece, and perhaps for Indymedia to re-examine the high-handed and censorious position they took towards it. Many of us foot-soldiers of the movement, rather than the high-flying movers and shakers, consider it contains some very sound analysis.
All Power Corrupts
_____________________________________________________________
The Grassy Knoll piece received very positive comments from ordinary activists and appears to be the basis for a statement on the Kennedy affair by Berlin Anarchist Black Cross. Yet it caused an unprecedented censorship campaign by Indymedia moderators, which was led by those who had uncovered Kennedy and their close associates. Not only was the article ‘hidden’ (i.e. removed from the Indymedia newswire) along with comments agreeing with it, but any re-posts were vigorously pursued across the worldwide Indymedia network and removed. This was however not enough for those trying to censor the Grassy Knoll piece. When articles are ‘hidden’ on Indymedia they still remain in some form and can therefore be found when using a search engine. Indymedia received a request from ‘114defence’ for a “full hide”, a complete and absolute removal of the post from Indymedia’s internet terrain. As with every other request received from the same milieu, Indymedia were happy to accede.
The reason given for this unprecedented Indymedia censorship was that the Grassy Knoll piece supposedly contained “highly personal info”. Does it? The article names only four people – Mark Kennedy, Simon Lewis, Sophie Stevens, and (in passing) John Jordan. Kennedy’s name is obviously well known, but so are those of Lewis and Stevens, thanks to their own self-promotion (Stevens even appeared on ‘BBC Newsnight’). Jordan is another avid self-promoter, but so far as is known is not linked directly to the Kennedy affair (he will be discussed later). The piece also names Kennedy’s boat, but that has been named previously on Indymedia, as it has been since in the corporate media, and what would activists care about that anyway? Looking over the piece it is hard to see where this damaging “highly personal info” is. More than likely Indymedia were accommodating a request from someone who was not happy with the article’s critical analysis and the portrait it paints of certain sections of the ‘eco-activist’ scene.
Like the earliest corporate articles the raw information on which the Grassy Knoll piece is based could very well have been taken from earlier postings on Indymedia itself. With Mark Kennedy having now sold his story to the ‘Mail On Sunday’ there is now a massive more amount of “highly personal info” in the public arena than has ever appeared on Indymedia, and certainly far more than was contained in the censored Grassy Knoll piece.
Kennedy quite clearly lies throughout the ‘Mail’ interview, but in the light of its publication, and in light of more serious corporate journalism, the analysis given in the Grassy Knoll piece is worth re-examining.
The claims made in the Grassy Knoll article, which some clearly agree with and others find controversial, can be broken down as follows:
1) That many good quality photos of Kennedy existed, and were in the possession of his close friends, which were not posted to Indymedia.
2) That one of the Ratcliffe defendants, Simon Lewis, contacted Kennedy sometime after he was uncovered as a cop and asked for his help.
3) The founder of the so-called ‘Clown Army’ John Jordan was a “Special Branch tout”.
4) That the group who uncovered Kennedy as a cop knew his whereabouts, but would not give them out to the general movement.
5) That posters on Indymedia have accused the group who uncovered Kennedy of some form of unspoken agreement whereby he would protect them as best he could and they in return would let him walk away, leave his boat alone, not post their archive of photographs and personal information to the net, and not disclose his whereabouts or those of his family.
Looking at these claims individually, in respect of Point 1, there have been numerous claims on Indymedia that there were hundreds of photographs of Kennedy in existence, many of which were on display at a 40th birthday party he held shortly before being unmasked. Some of those photos, much better than were posted to Indymedia, have appeared in the corporate press and on ‘Newsnight’. Indeed it would be strange if during seven years those closest to Kennedy did not accumulate photos of him. There also appear to have been many photos circulating on ‘Facebook’ and on a ‘69ers’ website set up specifically to display photos taken at Kennedy’s birthday party. It seems to this writer that it is probably true that many photos of Kennedy exist and that they are held (or were held) by his closest friends.
In respect of Point 2, Simon Lewis taped himself talking to Kennedy and these tapes were given to ‘BBC Newsnight’, so we know that this contact took place, and we know the nature of that contact. As has also been said in the Grassy Knoll piece we also know that the contact with Kennedy was at best unnecessary and has led the corporate media to spin the story so as to present Kennedy as sympathetic to those he spied upon.
To long-standing activists it would be surprising if the claim that John Jordan was a “Special Branch tout” was controversial. While involved with ‘Reclaim the Streets’ Jordan admitted to having had meetings with Special Branch, which continued even after he was told to stop speaking to them by fellow activists. From this writers point of view the facts surrounding the matter are well established and we should be suspicious of anyone trying to rewrite history in Jordan’s favour.
There have been repeated claims on Indymedia that Kennedy’s whereabouts were known around the time he was exposed. People close to his exposers have argued on Indymedia that they needed to protect his family from adverse attention, implying that their whereabouts (and his) were certainly known. Kennedy’s word counts for very little, but his account claims that he was tracked down to his home address in Ireland and telephoned there. It seems ridiculous that those he betrayed would just let him walk away without having any idea where he was going. According to Kennedy’s publicist Max Clifford, the ex-cop is currently holed-up near LA, and it seems unlikely that those who exposed him know his address, but it seems probable that at some point in the past they did know where he was, certainly at the very least they knew that he was in Ireland.
Various accusations that a deal or agreement was made with Kennedy were made by posters on Indymedia rather than by the Grassy Knoll article. This accusation has clearly caused upset, yet in the form presented in the Grassy Knoll piece is it really so unreasonable or so damning? We make unspoken agreements all the time, knowing for example that if we throw a brick at a cop on a demo we’ll be beaten to the ground, arrested, and sent to prison for a long time. Having lived alongside them for so long, Kennedy clearly knows a great deal about those he was spying on and vice versa. He would know lots of personal details and perhaps have information about misdemeanours not divulged to his bosses. Is it so unreasonable to assume that his exposers might be reluctant to do him all the damage they could in the hope that he will refrain from doing the same? Apart from exposing him, for which they deserve the fullest praise, this group of friends have said very little about Kennedy. As is claimed, they certainly let him go on his way unharmed, and there is evidence they deliberately sought to hide details of his boat. They have also certainly protected his family (much more than Kennedy has done.) Kennedy does not seem to have any ill will for this group, and the reverse is true in respect of some of them, and while he was prepared to publically name other activists in his interview, the group who exposed him were afforded anonymity. An uneasy ‘pax’ does seem to exist.
In view of the revelations since its publication, it may be time to take another look at the Grassy Knoll piece, and perhaps for Indymedia to re-examine the high-handed and censorious position they took towards it. Many of us foot-soldiers of the movement, rather than the high-flying movers and shakers, consider it contains some very sound analysis.
All Power Corrupts
_____________________________________________________________
All Power Corrupts
Additions
Re The Grassy Knoll
18.01.2011 15:10
If you have read the comment that replaced the article, then it told you where you should discuss your concerns about 'censorship'
[Admin note] Please note that this article was hidden for it's unsubstantiated attacks on named activists. For most activists the point here is to expose the undercover cops, not to cause upset and unpleasantness for other activists. If you wish to discuss the manner in which this article has been moderated please contact the moderation list: imc-uk-moderation at lists.indymedia.org (which is publicly archived) or alternatively the contact list: imc-uk-contact at lists.indymedia.org (which is not publicly archived)
You say: The reason given for this unprecedented Indymedia censorship was that the Grassy Knoll piece supposedly contained “highly personal info”.
Which is an inaccurate summing up. The article goes out of its way to name names, and does so in the full knowledge that the corporate media were combing through threads looking for dirt.
You berate others for talking to the media and then insist on your right to use Indymedia as a tool for anonymously dishing your own dirt to the media.
Your assumptions remain exactly that - you provide no evidence that a pact does exist, nor that information was deliberately witheld.
Now, why not take your concerns to the appropriate place?
[Admin note] Please note that this article was hidden for it's unsubstantiated attacks on named activists. For most activists the point here is to expose the undercover cops, not to cause upset and unpleasantness for other activists. If you wish to discuss the manner in which this article has been moderated please contact the moderation list: imc-uk-moderation at lists.indymedia.org (which is publicly archived) or alternatively the contact list: imc-uk-contact at lists.indymedia.org (which is not publicly archived)
You say: The reason given for this unprecedented Indymedia censorship was that the Grassy Knoll piece supposedly contained “highly personal info”.
Which is an inaccurate summing up. The article goes out of its way to name names, and does so in the full knowledge that the corporate media were combing through threads looking for dirt.
You berate others for talking to the media and then insist on your right to use Indymedia as a tool for anonymously dishing your own dirt to the media.
Your assumptions remain exactly that - you provide no evidence that a pact does exist, nor that information was deliberately witheld.
Now, why not take your concerns to the appropriate place?
yawn
