Spies on video- Martin Hogbin and Paul Mercer
Undercurrents | 20.02.2011 11:00 | Sheffield | World
Paul Mercer
Martin Hogbin
1.Paul Mercer- a spy for BAe who has infiltrated many protest groups.Mercer was publicly exposed for his role in spying on anti-arms trade campaigners, Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) in 2007. His contract for the operation was finalised through Global Open. We have images of him on M11 link road protests in 1995, surrounded by police looking like he is arguing with them. He has a stills camera with zoom lens around his neck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq-eVP_h1Y4 2.Martin Hogbin- a spy for Bae who worked undercover in CAAT. Images of Hogbin driving a van for Mark Thomas who dumped manure on doorstep of Labour HQ.Also images of Hogbin dumping fake blood on steps of the AMG of BAe with activist Chris Cole. Images of both holding a CAAT banner and both being arrested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqx94zHd0rI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkC5UPQ-OVw 3.The car which undercover cop PC Boyling/Sutton drove to block the streets for the carnival against capitalism in 1999. Video images of 5 police pushing it away after the undercover cop 'accidentally' left the window open. This story was reported in the Guardian.
PC Mark Kennedy was at the Big Green Gathering in 2006. If you filmed there please contact us on
info@undercurrents.org if anyone has any ima
Undercurrents
e-mail:
info@undercurrents.org
Homepage:
http://www.undercurrents.org/
Additions
The Car wich PC Boyling/Sutton dumped in carnval against capitalism
20.02.2011 11:16
Car which PC Boyling was in (still from undercurrent svideo)
Reclaim the Streets was a colourful collective opposed to cars. During its protests, members would block roads and start impromptu street parties. One notorious technique involved either crashing or parking "sacrificial cars" in the middle of traffic, sealing off the road. For police, they clearly constituted a potentially dangerous group of anarchists whose demonstrations had a record of descending into disorder.
Boyling's operation would prove to be so successful that he played a central organising role behind the so-called Carnival Against Capitalism in 1999, one of the major anti-capitalist demonstrations of the past two decades. Those involved in organising the protest recall that he was "navigator" in a car that had been intended to block Upper Thames Street, in central London, kickstarting a day in which thousands of activists would clash with police.
The woman who was driving the car – purchased for £200 – recalls how Boyling made what at the time appeared to be a stupid error. He left the window open, enabling police to open the door, take off the handbrake, and push the car away.
Confronted over his error, Boyling was said to have replied: "Oh, I forgot." The protest went ahead anyway, but it was a setback for the activists.
Undercurrents
e-mail:
info@undercurrents.org
Homepage:
http://www.undercurrents.org
Comments
Hide the following 47 comments
To Undercurrents...
20.02.2011 11:50
"colourful collective opposed to cars" BLURGH! and "carnival against CAPITAL, not capitalism."
Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s
Post them here?
20.02.2011 13:13
watcher
Carnival Against Capitalism is what it has been generally dubbed
20.02.2011 13:17
More people know J18 as The Global Carnival Against Capitalism rather than Capital which is why i used the term here.
Undercurrents
To the Anarchist from RTS
20.02.2011 13:19
Undercurrents
To Undercurrents...
20.02.2011 15:19
And why are you hunting for footage of Kennedy? You making a documentary on it?
Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s
Arrested
20.02.2011 15:28
I think the police were a bit pissed off with Mercer at the time because they had just arrested him – that’s what he was arguing about - after he too had been removed from the roof.
Although I have no sympathy for Mercer it is disingenuous to use this still from the video to imply that he was somehow briefing the police – and then complain that he has represented us.
Jo
e-mail:
josanderson1@hotmail.co.uk
to Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s
20.02.2011 17:39
look out for "divide and conquer" tactics always.
reward people doing active work and caring for others, not attacking. :)
in solidarity,
experienced
experienced activist
Be warned!!!
20.02.2011 19:00
Sceptic
To 'experienced'...
20.02.2011 19:28
Trying to raise valid political points is something I think is positive, all victories have been won partly through harsh and valid radical critique, not a mindless happy clappy "all in this together, anything goes" kind of politics, which you seem to idolize.
Think before you write, or better yet, go and read some books on radical politics and history.
Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s
To the Anarchist from RTS
20.02.2011 19:53
I only used the Guardian quote because it explains the action the undercover was on.
Why are we hunting for footage of Kennedy?
Undercurrents has exposed police tactics against activists since 1993 with films about the FIT team, how to sue police, we explained the CJB when no- one else was publishing videos about it.
We have now been asked by activist groups to uncover what we can about the undercover tactics so we help get an overhaul of the system and create real change.
So help us rather than just slag us off from your 1990's comfy armchair
Undercurrents
Undercurrents used as pretext
20.02.2011 20:21
Undercurrents encouraged ordinary activists to film protests and send them the videos and thus provided anyone else the perfect excuse if ever questioned.
AF
Undercurrent archives
20.02.2011 20:27
I’m not sure how much use this historic footage or Hogbin being booted out of a BAE AGM and Mercer being harassed by the police 16 years ago, but if it’s take them so long to find these videos, they much have massive archives of activist protests.
Is it right that Undercurrents should retain this video footage?
And how can we be sure than an undercover police officer or even someone working for Global Open cannot infiltrate Undercurrents and access them as well.
Worried former activist
Absolutely true
20.02.2011 20:38
I never thought that it meant Undercurrents had any link with the police but was convinced that whoever the police were using was pretending to be from Undercurrents.
Tim
Undercurrents reply...
20.02.2011 20:47
That is pure rubbish. Where did you dig that up from? No one has ever mentioned anything like that to any of us here at undercurrents.
As for our archives- we are putting as much as our archive online for all to share under creative commons license.
As for a reply to the 'Worried former activist'.
Sounds like you are buying into the state induced paranoia- undercover cops destroy trust so we end up not trusting anyone. Don't buy into it. You can never be 100% sure that there isn't an undercover police officer or even someone working for Global Open working inside any activist group. The best you can do is to do research, get to know the people and then make an informed decision.Whatever you do don't go slandering groups just because you are feeling a bit paranoid.
Undercurrents
Spreading half truths..
20.02.2011 20:59
Undercurrents was one of only a handful of video activist groups during the 90's. We supported hundreds of campaigns successfully so don't sully our name with this cheap dig of second hand information from a cop. Anyone at the Newbury camp could have phoned undercurrents to check on the person who wanted to film down the tunnels. They didn't and they should have.
Undercurrents reply to Tim
Undercurrents archive go online – scary!
20.02.2011 21:01
Next time someone from Undercurrents tries to film me I know exactly what I’m going to say!!!
Another ex-RTS activist
Carnival Against Capital
20.02.2011 21:07
Anyway, I didn't mean to get dragged into commenting on all that!
Except to say J18, June 18th, Carnival Against Capital - that's what we called it. Just because people call something or someone by another name doesn't mean we have to follow their lead - if we did, I'd be calling myself by a lot of rubbish labels! Surely it's up to people to decide themselves what to call themselves (/event/community), not up to newspapers etc! Why I guess it's been picked up by someone else apart from me, is that though it sounds petty, it was an important distinction (later lost through lazy labelling!) and relevant to our politics, what we were trying to say, the traps we were trying not to fall into, etc etc blah blah
Anonymous
‘Could have phoned Undercurrents’ - bollocks
20.02.2011 21:15
The fact is that at the time Undercurrents was encouraging activists to act as their video journalists and to send them footage. There was never any requirement to register with Undercurrents or show credentials. It would have been very easy for an undercover copper – or more likely an informant – to pose as someone working for Undercurrents.
Tim
Proof that we cannot trust Undercurrents
20.02.2011 21:30
I have never trusted Undercurrents and these latest comments have only reinforced my suspicions.
Another ex-RTSer
Sequence of events
20.02.2011 22:46
2. Undercurrents target of anonymous negative comments
Noted, ta.
CH
Reply to - Undercurrents archive go online – scary!
20.02.2011 22:47
Do you think we should make films with activist groups and then hide them away and only show them to a handful of other trusted activists? What sense would that make?
Our video archive is a shared history of protest in the UK. By sharing it online, we are giving the present and future generations of video activists access to a history they won't find anywhere else. This is the role which alternative media groups such as Indymedia, Undercurrents and schNews are playing.
But yes, it is true- Global Open, the police or even the CIA can access pictures of anyone who appears in undercurrents films. But that has always been the case since we first published on VHS. We can't stop anyone watching our films but we can, and do, make good decisions on not releasing any sensitive images.
The very flimsy argument from 'Another ex-RTSer' that Undercurrents shouldn't be trusted because we got Paul Mercer to interview a plain clothes cop in 1997 is just daft. Like all campaign groups, at the time we didn't know Mercer was a spy. The video activist who filmed the cop didn't know either. Mercer was at the protest and he interviewed the cop photographer about the FIT teams, while one of our crew covertly filmed the cop .This was then used in our film Pig Brother- exposing the FIT team which no-one else had done at the time.
So if anyone has problems with how Undercurrents operates, we would rather hear suggestions and try to solve them, rather than pushing us away with some warped ideas of who you think we are.
Undercurrents
e-mail:
info@undercurrents.org
Homepage:
http://www.undercurrents.org
A little shocked
20.02.2011 23:03
Given that Undercurrents obviously knew this fact, why has it taken them four years to admit it?
Phil King
Late admission
21.02.2011 06:51
Anon
Undercurrents has perhaps outlived its usefulness
21.02.2011 08:05
Of course they are not of the same quality as Undercurrents and don’t necessarily tell a story. But are people really interested in long documentary-style videos?
HD camcorders produce still images that are almost as good as still cameras. You see EG coppers with HD cameras sweeping protests and I’m sure that however careful we are they capture our images.
Back in the anti-road protest days anyone could claim that they were working for Undercurrents and at the time it was encouraging anyone who had a camcorder to do so. To suggest that they could grab a (non-existent at the time) mobile and check people’s credentials with Undercurrents is nonsense. It has been separately claimed that the M11 protest was infiltrated by German police posing as a German TV crew and in view of the latest allegations in Der Spiegel this seems completely credible.
So the problem is that Undercurrents needs to make sure that its video-journalists who are embedded with activists during protests have been properly vetted to ensure that they are not secretly passing on copies of their tapes to NPOIU or even Global Open. But I’m not sure that this is possible given the extent that groups have been infiltrated in the past. It is fine for Undercurrents to whinge that it didn’t know that Mercer had a history of writing books and protest groups (even though he always said he did!) when it used him to ‘interview’ this police photographer, but if he can slip through their net, virtually anyone can.
Small HD camcorders are a powerful activist tool when used correctly but I think that they can also a powerful weapon against us unless they are not properly controlled. Undercurrents needs to ask itself whether it is potentially causing more harm than it is doing good.
Jo
e-mail:
josanderson1@hotmail.co.uk
Plainclothes cop?
21.02.2011 09:04
I’m not sure how Undercurrents could vet its video helpers to ensure that they weren’t undercover cops or working for private companies. Isn’t there a danger that if we were to trust them implicitly they could be an even greater threat?
My view is that all cameras and phones should be banned from covert actions and that Undercurrents should be regarded in the same way that any other media organisation are - ie with suspicion.
Agi
Are you joking?
21.02.2011 09:23
It is said that undercover cops pretended to be from undercurrents in order to be allowed to film actions. As a consequence, undercurrents is seen as damaging to the movements, because it provides cover for police spies.
Thus, undercurrents and in fact any type of media activism, any movement documentation and any filming and publishing of images on any type of social media, commercial or autonomous, is baaad and should be dismantled.
Similarly, we know that the open, participatory, trust-based formats of radical organising allowed a whole series of undercover cops to infiltrate the movements and become well-respected activists.
Thus open, participatory formats of radical organising should be eliminated.
May I suggest that we return to hard-core 1930s style communist cadre organising. Thats the safe way. Lets organise in groups of five, where only one of each groups has a 'connection' to the party / the organisation / the central comitee. Lets make sure that nobody enters a group of five without serious and extensive vetting. Verify biographies, place of birth and schooling, parents, marriages, sexual practices, political affiliation, working biographies. Get a chronological CV from each potential participant backed up with verifyable documents before admitting them to a group of five. Don't trust anyone.
No more open assembies and complicated consensus-based decision making - too dangerous. Provides cover for spies. Better to have only a very small number of highly trustworthy individuals, preferably men, who make the decisions for all of us. No more fluffy rubbish like "changing the face of democracy", "prefigurative practices", or "laboratories of social change".
And in terms of demos and protests - if it is really necessary to take the streets en masse, there should be a highly organised security operation to prevent the use of digital devices to take pictures or video which could potentially be harmful to the movement. Each protester should undergo a body-search before being allowed to enter a demonstration. Possibly, protesters could be blindfolded, because people remember what and who they see and this can be damaging.
Honestly, this discussion about blaming undercurrents for state-side infiltration leads nowhere and is, bluntly spoken, nonsense - even damaging and worse, I say, unsafe.
transmitter
A little too far 'transmitter', perhaps
21.02.2011 10:13
I have always had a theory that the police overt evidence gathering teams, with their large cameras and highly visible jackets provide a diversion for more subtle undercover video and camera operators. The problem with highlighting these "EG" teams is that some people turn away and try not to their picture taken which immediately helps the police identify who they really need to take an interest in.
Despite almost two decades of highlighting the work of police FIT activity it is still happening, it is still very obtrusive and it is still having a damaging impact on the movement. As with the constant drip feed of stories about undercover police and private "spies", there is a danger that it is deterring many potential activists. Worse, we have no idea what impact this is having although my gut feeling is that it is causing us far more damage than we can sense and that we are, unconsciously, doing the states and the corporation's dirty work for them.
It's time to stop looking for spies and get on with campaigning!
Anon
Think about it, Undercurrents
21.02.2011 14:22
The apogee of the Guardianista distortions about RTS reproduced in their post is
“For police, they clearly constituted a potentially dangerous group of anarchists whose demonstrations had a record of descending into disorder.”.
“Whose parties had a record of being violently attacked by berserker police extremists as soon as the youngest children had been taken home” would have been a more accurate way to put it. You could almost set your watch by the timing of the unprovoked attack.
That said, Undercurrents have done some good stuff (credit where it’s due) as well as a great deal of lazy, mushy stuff, often missing the real point (criticism where it’s due).
@ Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s:
“Trying to raise valid political points is something I think is positive, all victories have been won partly through harsh and valid radical critique, not a mindless happy clappy "all in this together, anything goes" kind of politics, which you seem to idolize.”
Exactly! There’s constructive and destructive ways to do it, of course. The former leads to progress if the critique meets with a grown-up and considered response and is discussed frankly. People who just reject all criticism out of hand, who have an “in group” mentality or don’t recognise that everything we do can always be done better are worse than annoying –they’re a liability..
@ CH
“1. Undercurrents publish photos of undercover police
2. Undercurrents target of anonymous negative comments.”
Neither of them police (both employed by private spying firms on behalf of BAe) and both known about for several years. Nothing new here, so maybe the comments make political and practical points, which Undercurrents would do themselves more credit by considering.
@ Agi:
“I’m not sure how Undercurrents could vet its video helpers to ensure that they weren’t undercover cops or working for private companies.”
Having a look at the sort of books they’d previously published (and admitted to) would have been a start. OK, Mercer was the only one in that position, but..DOH!
@ Anon: “As with the constant drip feed of stories about undercover police and private "spies", there is a danger that it is deterring many potential activists.”
Eh? Where you been? More new, young activists on the streets and doing stuff now (including inspiring us old farts) than there have been for the last two decades. It isn’t
Another Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s:
please stop slagging off undercurrents
22.02.2011 12:17
let me tell all you anons, did something back in the day once - types, irish paul is a good egg. undercurrents played a major part in the 90's scene, they filmed the m11 taking westminster and many other fantastic actions. of course you wouldn't invite them to a monkey-wrenching, like you wouldn't hand over your rushes with anything dodge on them. simple as. just listen to yourselves. RTS this, RTS that. go out and do an action if you're bored!
yours, neil (oh probably a cop too no doubt) goodwin
neil goodwin
e-mail:
neilgoodwinsa@gmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/littletrampvgreatdictator
Hilarious Neil, hilarious...
22.02.2011 13:20
And we're 'Anonymous' cos we have something to lose cos we're involved in action, not just photographers making a nice little living out of representing people that risk their lives and freedoms thanks.
What on earth does 'Irish Paul's a good egg' have to do with anything? We're not saying he's a 'bad person', just that the politics and activity of UC are quite fucked up. Is that your serious defence to political criticism, that's he's nice!!!??
And I'm still radical and still active thanks, so not sure what you mean with your lame 'do another action' or 'did something back in the day' crap.
As for 'RTS this, RTS that' - huh? People only referred to RTS as Undercurrents description of us was the initial criticism raised here.
And even if I wasn't 'an activist', it doesn't negate any of the criticisms of Undercurrents that have been made here and elsewhere.
All you do with your lame pseudo-criticisms is make yourself and Undercurrents look like there's no good answers to the concerns expressed here.
Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s
i'd never call myself an anarchist from rts in the 1990's, it just sounds so...
22.02.2011 17:28
BLURGH! Yeah, very politically critical.
keep it fluffy!
Undercurrents redundant?
22.02.2011 18:28
Having admitted that its footage of Mercer shows him arguing with the police, and not briefing them (as the original still implied), and then this belated admission that Undercurrents actually used an interview conducted by Mercer on one of its video productions, suggests to me that it is no more honest than the mainstream.
There may be nothing in these allegations that the police and/or private operators have used Undercurrents as a cover to get footage of buildings and tunnels before they are evicted – although it does seem very plausible and cannot be disproved – but it needs to address the problem. How do we know whether someone turning up with a camcorder to film our actions, even if they have been ‘approved’ by Undercurrents HQ, are not also acting on behalf of the corporate state? Until this dilemma is solved, anyone claiming to be from Undercurrents should be treated with as much caution as would a mainstream commercial organisation.
Personally I think that although Undercurrents may have done a useful job in the past, it has been made redundant by technology and that most people are now not interested in its edited and inherently biased interpretations of events.
Another anon.
Whats good for the goose is good for the propergander
22.02.2011 19:07
As should 'Another Anon' be treated with as much caution as any other disinformation troll.
Cue indignant spluttering.
Yet Another Anon
Two reasons good reasons NOT to trust Undercurrents
22.02.2011 19:47
More worryingly, however, is Thomas Harding who became the Defence Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. His first Telegraph effort, in 2001, was an outrageous article which recounted how he had infiltrated the Wombles on behalf of the newspaper:
How do we know that more Undercurrents journalists are not going to abuse the trust that they have built up with activist groups to carry out similar expose articles about our activities as they join the mainstream?.
Old hand
A good reason not to trust 'Old Hand'
22.02.2011 20:36
Because there can only be one person named Thomas Harding, right?
Thomas Harding (born 1968) is a British journalist, videographer and publisher who is known for running media organizations that cover stories that other news outlets will not cover.
In December 2006 he became co-owner and publisher of The Observer newspaper, West Virginia. In February 2010 he was awarded the West Virginia Journalist of the Year by the Justice Association of West Virginia.
Thomas Harding is the Daily Telegraph’s Defence Correspondent who covers the Army, Navy and RAF, defence politics and all operations involving the military. He has covered conflicts from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Balkans and was based in Northern Ireland for three years. He formerly served in The Parachute Regiment, Territorial Army.
(Latest articles 22nd Feb 2011)
It say a lot that there are all these 'Old Hands' who can find nothing better to do with their lives than launch 'radical' anonymous attacks on Indymedia posts.
Get a life or something.
nom de plume
Wow, that's some scumbags...
22.02.2011 20:45
So Undercurrents, you still in touch with your former filmers?
Anarchist from RTS in the 1990s
Other direction
22.02.2011 20:54
PT
Theres only one George Marshall
22.02.2011 21:18
That'll be this guy then.
He used to be quite high powered in the USA as well.
"American military leader, Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of State, and the third Secretary of Defense"
How many names are you posting under?
George Marshall
It's gets worse!!!
22.02.2011 21:19
Shocked
It is shocking
22.02.2011 21:29
Indignant of Indymedia
Jimmy Goldsmith connection
22.02.2011 22:09
RM
Well documented?
22.02.2011 23:48
So, if the claim that "THE George Marshall (as in Undercurrents) did secure funding from the right-wing financier Sir James Goldsmith and this has been well-documented" is to be taken seriously it isn't going to be difficult to prove, is it?
Its such a pity that all these 'old hands' who know so much haven't got any positive actions to report. Somehow, however 'radical' their credentials, posting nasty anonymous attacks as comments on Indymedia posts probably isn't going to lead to "a world based on freedom, cooperation, justice and solidarity, and against environmental degradation, neoliberal exploitation, racism and patriarchy."
Is it?
And all we can do now is settle for the proof.
Judge, Jury, Hangman and Reporter
Proof of funding from Sir James Goldsmith
23.02.2011 05:24
OK - if you want proof how about this...
The George Marshall (as in Undercurrents) admitted himself that he found the money to launch Earth First! UK and that it came from Sir James Goldsmith:
"Up until his [Teddy Goldsmith's] death he was also one of the few (and certainly one of the largest) personal funders of radical grassroots campaigning. Among other things he personally provided tens of thousands of his own money or money from his brother James for the beginning of Earth First! in the UK which in turn played a major role in kick starting the anti-roads movement and much that followed."
This of course begs the question as to which other 'radical grassroots' groups the billionaire financier, described by Margaret Thatcher as a "great man, larger than life", was funding?
RM
But did Goldsmith also fund Undercurrents?
23.02.2011 05:41
I had heard about the Federation of Conservative Students link before and was not convinced but the claim that Earth First! in the United Kingdom was initially funded by Goldsmith is, sadly, almost certainly true.
Can Undercurrents state that it has never received funding, directly or indirectly, from Goldsmith?
Passive observer
Not that passive
23.02.2011 09:44
Which Goldsmith is that then? The obit says that Teddy Goldsmith, who had some odd politics but was supportive of Direct Action " personally provided tens of thousands of his own money or money from his brother James for the beginning of Earth First! in the UK".
It doesn't make clear whether James knew where he money was going.
Judge, Jury, Hangman and Reporter
Laughable comments
25.02.2011 21:17
First off the comments from 'Old Hand' about Thomas Harding who co-founded undercurrents. He is NOT the Thomas Harding of the Daily Telegraph. If you did your homework you would find that our video activist has never been the 'Defence Correspondent who covers the Army, Navy and RAF, defence politics and all operations involving the military.'
As for George Marshall who worked with Undercurrents- we can state with hand on heart that he has never been an "American military leader, Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of State, and the third Secretary of Defense"
The comments about our crew over the years- yes, Roddy who worked with undercurrents has moved into Sky News doing investigative reports, Jason now works with Greenpeace, Luke became a BBC cameraman reporting in the middle east. Jamie left undercurrents to set up the Ethical Property company who supplies well resourced campaign offices all over the UK. When the alternative media can't financially provide for them they have to find suitable work but still with their eyes on creating social change.Some people who lived in the trees in Newbury have since gone onto be tree surgeons so what is wrong with people who worked in alternative media now working in the mainstream media or mainstream activist groups? Surely the idea is that we influence the wider population so a grounding in grassroots knowledge is vital?
As for Phil Kings comments 'So Mercer was asked by Undercurrents to act as it's on-the-spot reporter!'
This is not strictly true. Gary from RTS and was at a demo with a camcorder and saw a plain clothes copper with a long lens and camera. Paul Mercer was there too and the 2 of them got together and interviewed the copper. Mercer was never asked by Undercurrents to do anything. We then used the interview in our film Pig Brother which Roddy from Undercurrents made. We had no idea that Mercer was a spy.
As for funding- yes we did get a few grand from Teddy Goldsmith in 1995 who was very supportive of direct action.
I understand a few people like Simon from the 90's RTS has personal gripes with undercurrents but rather than just wanting us wiped out, why don't you try to be constructive? We ain't going away. We got into alternative media because we want to bring about real change.
Undercurrents
recording history
24.02.2012 23:05
It looks to me like Undercurrents is exposing undercover cops, so cops get on IMC and pretend to be activists and divide the movement. That is clear for the negative slags above.
Thanks for your hard work to all at Undercurrents! :D
experienced @