Fit watch

Police all out to gather intelligence on EDL and Counter Demo.

2010-05-06T01:33:00.000-07:00

Their key objective for the day was 'to gather intelligence', said the Thames Valley FIT officer who was busy photographing a small crowd of people who had gathered to oppose the EDL in Market Square, Aylesbury. Earlier evidence gathering teams had been hovering, photographing and filming the stop and search operation that was focused on Vale Park, the location of the main anti-edl demo. This is an established and efficient way of getting the names, addresses and photos of the young, radical looking people who turn up.

The EDL fared much the same. As they got off the buses one by one, the FIT got perfect head and shoulders shots of each of them. There were no shortage of police cameras. Thames Valley had drafted in FIT from various other forces, including Greater Manchester, Northamptonshire and the West Midlands.

As always on these occasions, the intelligence gathering was co-ordinated by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), this time by Ian Skivens (above right), a Met cop on secondment to the NPOIU. The NPOIU is a private company run by ACPO, which collects, collates and analyses intelligence on 'domestic extremism'. Skivens spent his time at Aylesbury in the company of a Thames Valley FIT cop, 3465 (above left) who was sporting a digital stills camera with a very long lens.

Photos from Aylesbury, whether they are of EDL or from the counter demo, will find their way to Scotland Yard for NPOIU analysis. The images and data will be 'weeded' for intelligence value and put on a database, or more probably, a number of different databases. This intelligence is then available for any police force, agency, or other 'appropriate' body to use.

Some people will say, the EDL, rascist thugs, they deserve it. But the powers the police use against one side - the EDL - will also be used against the 'other side', anti-fascists, Muslim communities and local people. You don't need to have done anything unlawful to end up on a police file. And in the anti-terrorism hysteria of our times, it is probably the Muslim communities who have most to fear from inclusion on an extremism database.

On the streets of Aylesbury the biggest enemies to freedom and tolerance were probably the ones with the yellow and blue coats.

Comment on Smellie Acquittal

2010-04-01T04:11:00.000-07:00

[This is a personal piece reflecting the views of one fitwatcher]

Sergeant Smellie’s acquittal yesterday at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, whilst disappointing, is hardly surprising. Many Fitwatchers know Smellie from his days as AB42 when he was often deployed in a FIT capacity and was frequently nasty, smug and aggressive, and whilst his attack upon Nicky Fisher wasn’t pleasant or justifiable, it was far from the worst of the G20 assaults.

However, the reality is the court was never going to believe Nicky Fisher over Smellie when she didn’t bother turning up for court. Under these circumstances it is surprising the trial even went ahead – if I was facing charges of assaulting a police officer and the cop didn’t show up, I would expect the case to be dropped, and I suspect only political expediency ensured the case’s progression.

Smellie’s defence, whilst smattered with bullshit, was credible enough to pass the beyond reasonable doubt test of British justice especially when two prosecution witnesses testified unfavourably reagarding Fisher’s behaviour. There may be conspiracy theories as to why the prosecution called witnesses who undermined their case, but I suspect it may be nothing more than an inept, lazy Crown Prosecution Service to blame.

Unfortunately, this case has acted as a smokescreen meaning the important questions were not asked and the right people not challenged. Smellie was following orders to clear the road and was doing so in the manner he was trained. Only following orders is not a defence under any circumstances, but attempting to prosecute Smellie without seeking to blame the officers who gave the orders is meaningless. Equally, prosecuting him for following his training in acting like a violent thug is meaningless without questioning his training and deployment.

Meanwhile there has been no justice for Ian Tomlinson. The identity of the police officer who attacked him is still unknown, and the FIT officers involved, Discombe and Palfry are still policing our protests. Of the 212 complaints forwarded to the IPCC none have had any kind of meaningful resolution.

Perhaps the only good which can come out of this debacle is lack of faith in the system. Real change will only occur when we stop relying on public/political bodies to fight our battles for us. It is down to ordinary people everywhere to hold the police to account, and this will only happen when we stop playing the victim and start fighting back.

English FIT working in Scotland

2010-02-24T03:45:00.000-08:00

We recieved this report about FIT presence at the recent EDL and counter demonstrations in Edinburgh.

Just a wee update about the general FIT presence in Scotland.

Last Saturday seen the largest FIT presence on the streets of Edinburgh since the G8. Ian Skivins, Mark Scully and Paul Mathers from London, one photographer from Manchester
(see pics), and loads from Edinburgh and Glasgow were all spotted.

The sight of Glasgow FIT is new as previously Strathclyde Police have steered away from met style policing. During the G8 in scotland the officer in charge of policing the Faslane demo deliberately kept the Met's FIT in the canteen so that they wouldn't " wind people up" (his own words). The Glasgow FIT have a darker shade of blue on their jackets and so are quite recognisable.

Many of the Edinburgh FIT are familiar faces to many activists in Edinburgh and were used extensively during Novembers anti-NATO demo's, including following people into several cafes and pubs and hassling the staff into making them leave, and following people around the city, in some cases for hours. Also, interestingly, Ian Casswell visited Mainshill during the eviction in plain black clothing. Shame for him his bearded mug is instantly recognisable and his attempts at sparking up conversation were met with abuse.

The Manchester cop shown above (1407) appears to be a fairly recent addition to the team of 'national' FIT that keep appearing in demos up and down the country. As well as showing up in Edinburgh, he was spotted in Brighton last month. We'd love to know a little more about him. If anyone has had any previous involvement with him, or if anyone has just seen him hanging around, please contact defycops@yahoo.co.uk

Harsh sentences for Gaza protesters

2010-02-20T04:32:00.000-08:00

Further harsh sentences were doled out yesterday as more of those arrested at the Gaza demonstrations last year attended Isleworth Crown Court for sentencing. A total of fifty people are to be sentenced for taking part in violent disorder during the protests outside the Israeli Embassy in Kensington last January. Previous sentencing has ranged between twelve months and two and a half years.

A further two defendants, both described as being of ‘exemplary character’ were yesterday sentenced to two years imprisonment. Another, for whom this was also a first offence, was sent down for 12 months. Four who had been under 18 at the time of the offence received detention orders ranging from 8 to 12 months. One was given a suspended sentence on grounds of mental illness, and two others were adjourned for pre-sentence reports.

The court was told how the defendants were fighting with police, although most of the allegations were of throwing or hitting out with flimsy placard sticks at riot police in full protective gear. A few of the defendants were also accused of ‘assisting’ others with picking up and throwing crowd control barriers that had been used by police to kettle protesters.. But there were no reports of any injuries sustained by anyone as a result of their actions. One man, a university student, got twelve months for throwing a single missile. His family sobbed in the gallery.

The court was not told about – nor seemed at all interested in - the context in which this violence happened. The court was not told about the police violence that was meted out on Gaza protesters during the numerous protests that took place in December and January last winter. How protesters were forced into pens, despite the crush that this caused. That protesters slow to move were pushed, shoved and sworn at, and those who objected, or who tried to move back barriers were hit with shields and batons.

Neither was the court interested in the political situation that was unfolding at the time. One of the defendants had recently visited part of his family in Gaza, a family including young children who were inevitably suffering under the brutal and unlawful military offensive that Israel had launched. It mattered not at all. He was sentenced to two years.

The Judge made it clear that the aim of these sentences was to act as a ‘deterrent to others’. It was not the behaviour of the individual that was important, he said, but the collective behaviour of the crowd.

These sentences cannot be seen as anything other than political, given the sustained effort and committment the state has put in to bringing so many people before the courts. The ‘deterrent’ effect intended is surely that of making Muslim communities fearful of taking to the streets again.

Other coverage:

Schnews

Press TV

Indymedia

And further info on the

No more isolation blog

Gaza report condemns policing

2010-02-10T05:07:00.000-08:00

The Islamic Human Rights Commission today released a damning report of the policing of the Gaza demonstrations in December 08 and January 09.

The report highlights the unnecessary and brutal use of force by the Metropolitan police as well as the practice of crushing protesters into protest 'pens' and the discriminatory treatment of Muslim protesters.

It also heavily criticises the use of Forward Intelligence Teams.

From the report:

i) The Role and Function of Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs)

IHRC is concerned about the role and function of FITs and their potential impact on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly and association) andArticle 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR. For the duration of the London Gaza demonstrations, there was an obvious and extensive presence of FITs.105 On occasion, IHRC observers noted that visiblyMuslim activists were closely studied; for example, an IHRC volunteer had to give her details, as she was video recorded for selling merchandise. She claimed thatmembers from other organisations were not harassed for selling their merchandise. Moreover, she claims that FITmembers dealt with her in an aggressive and intimidating fashion.

Subsequent to the BBC protest in Trafalgar Square (24 January 2009), a group of pro-Palestinian protesters were surrounded, cornered into a side street (near the theatre in Leicester Square) and made to line up against the wall. Each protester was ‘meticulously’ video-recorded and photographed. Pictorial evidence clearly depicts this scene and a witness stated that members of the pro-Palestinian contingent were made to say something in front of the camera.106 IHRC is concerned that FITs may be overreaching powers granted by virtue of section 50 PRA. Furthermore, IHRC expresses disquiet over reports of harassment and
house raids of those who had provided theMPS with personal details for the duration of the London Gaza demonstrations.

Monitoring Network Keeps the Spotlight on Police Brutality

2010-02-05T07:06:00.000-08:00

With the police adopting an increasingly confrontational and often violent approach to maintaining ‘order’ at public protests, the presence of trained legal observers, to collect information that may be helpful in later court proceedings and assist activists who are arrested or need medical attention, has become essential. Their focus is on the safety of demonstrators, without which the ‘right to protest’ is severely undermined if people are intimidated by the fear of police brutality from taking part in one of the vital elements of a democratic society.

At the G20 protests in April 2009, senior police officers sanctioned excessive force with an apparent expectation, based on previous experience, that the press and the public wouldn’t that much care about protesters. Taken aback by the spotlight placed upon them by the storm of complaints that followed, particularly the video evidence from members of the public that provided evidence of violent conduct, the police have been forced onto the defensive. So far this has led directly to the review of public order policing, Adapting to Protest, by Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Dennis O’Connor and the extremely low-key policing of last summer’s Climate Camp in Blackheath. Whether the review will really change anything and how long the new approach to policing protests will last, however, is far from certain. Much will depend on maintaining a constant level of scrutiny on police tactics and conduct.

With little confidence in public bodies like the Independent Police Complaints Commission and to try and ensure that attention remains focused on the policing of protest, four experienced organisations have set up the Police Monitoring Network to train and collate information from ‘police monitors’ at demonstrations around the country.

Members of the network include the legal team from Climate Camp, FITwatch (who monitoring oppressive surveillance by police ‘forward intelligence’ teams), the Legal Defence and Monitoring Group (who provide legal observers at demonstrations and grew out of the Trafalgar Square Defendants Campaign and Poll Tax Prisoners Support Group) and Newham Monitoring Project (an east London community organisation that has supported black communities to challenge police misconduct since 1980). They are joined by solicitors with expertise in civil actions against the police.

Police monitors will complement the role provided by legal observers in ensuring the safety of demonstrators but will focus specifically on scrutinising the actions of the police – whether, for example, police officers are covering identification numbers or psyching themselves up for violence and when police commanders are using tactics like kettling" that increase the likelihood of confrontation.

Training for police monitors, aimed initially at those who already have experience as legal observers, is planned for March 2010 and a website will be up and running shortly. For further information, contact FITwatch at defycops@yahoo.co.uk

FIT at Stop the War

2010-02-01T05:00:00.000-08:00

An estimated 600 police were on duty last Friday to police the Stop the War protest outside the QEII conference centre where Blair was giving evidence to the Iraq war inquiry. They probably outnumbered the protesters.

The demonstration had been stopped from assembling on the green of the QEII centre as they'd planned, and was instead coralled, without resistance, into Storey's gate and other side roads. There the policing relaxed, and as the day wore on, the ring of police and protesters around the conference centre began to resemble a giant square dance, unlikely to erupt into anything more threatening than an impromptu do-si-do.

The FIT, on the other hand, were keen to keep up their usual brand of intimidation and harassment. Photographer Neal Williams (pictured), along with his FIT minder, hovered behind the lines of TSG, every few minutes firing his camera flashgun in the faces of those picked out as 'potential trouble-makers'.

And the Hammersmith and Fulham cop (FH70), pictured top left, entered enthusiastically into the spirit of things, ordering three stop and searches, and at least one arrest for breach of the peace. He was a little too keen, perhaps, to impress his friends in the public order unit.

Pictures: Sgt FH70; Public Order police from Scotland Yard's CO11, CO5090 and Chief Inspector; Neal Williams, FIT photographer.

stop and search

2010-02-01T04:30:00.000-08:00

Climate protestors this weekend won a major High Court victory against the unlawful police stop and search operation used against protesters at their camp in Kingsnorth, Kent in August 2008.

It had been the largest and most expensive such operation in UK history involving 26 police forces. Led by Kent police, these forces carried out a continuous, systematic and unlawful mass stop and search regime

In the High Court the police accepted an Order that the searches of the three claimants had been 'unlawful', and constituted a violation oftheir human rights to privacy (breach of Article 8 of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights), to freedom of expression (breach ofArticle 10) and freedom of association (breach of Article 11).

Climate camp legal team have suggested that the 3,500 other searches carried under the same search laws (s1 PACE) would also have been unlawful.. All those searched under such laws can now sue the police and submit claims for damages. Those affected should log on to the climate camp website http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/ to see how to proceed with a claim.

The legal team claim that this case was won despite police efforts to deny there was any systematic stop and search policy. Their ludicrous position collapsed after a key 'smoking gun' document came to light revealing that the police 'bronze commanders' in charge of the operation atKingsnorth were systematically giving briefings for blanket stop and searches.

Three FITwatch defendants who were arrested and imprisoned for four days for photographing the stop and search operation at Kingsnorth are also persuing legal action.

Protest as Blair gives Iraq evidence

2010-01-28T08:30:00.000-08:00

Stop the War happily entered into negotiations with the police about their protest tomorrow, only to be told that the police will not allow them to congregate outside the QEII conference centre as they planned. If the police get their way, protests will be kept well away from the people they have come to protest against.

Stop the War appear to be resisting pressure from police, and are still advertising the QEII as a convergence point.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Mass Photography Gathering Trafalgar Square Sat 23 January, "I'm a Photographer Not A Terrorist"

2010-01-27T02:56:00.000-08:00

There were about a thousand photographers and also a couple of hapless PCSOs attempting to detain a leafletter (she was leafletting for the No Borders CCTV for later that day), but the thousand-strong photographer pack gently accidentally on purpose closed in to record the incident in such numbers as to make pursuit impossible.

One punter reported actually seeing a cop at the Mass Photography Event, and overheard this cop talking into his radio, asking "What, withdraw completely or just hang around on the edges?"

Fancy dress ironic fake cops seemed to outnumber real cops.

Photograph copyright Matt Salusbury

Police plan to use military style drones

2010-01-23T14:42:00.000-08:00

The FITwatch blog has previously reported on the use of chopper drones by police, to carry cameras above the heads of demonstrators. But it seems these are no longer enough for our surveillance obsessed forces - they now want military style unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to keep an eye on us all.
The Herti (pictured) is a pilotless aircraft developed by the arms manufacturer BAE systems. According to BAE it is a "highly adaptable, fully autonomous, platform-based solution providing robust, cost-effective surveillance and reconnaissance capability to support a range of military and civil requirements.”
In a recent article the Guardian has claimed that BAE have drawn up with various police forces and agencies a list of potential ‘civil requirements’ including “road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.” They'd like to have the unmanned planes in use in policing operations within the next five years.

The Guardian does not give a figure for the price of this crucial piece of kit, although it surely won't come cheap. Tax payers need not worry though - apparently the police can offset running costs by hiring it out to corporate business during 'down time'. Well, that's alright then...

Life is too short to be controlled

2010-01-21T02:47:00.000-08:00

No Borders Jan 23rd. St Pancras 2pm; Piccadilly Circus 4.30pm

FIT cameras are not the only surveillance that political protesters need worry about. CCTV is routinely used by police for the surveillance of political demonstration, as an alternative or an addition to deploying police photographers on the ground. Images are used to control the movement of demonstrations, to identify and record participants, and to provide evidence for the prosecution of misdemeanours. Information from CCTV systems can be shared with all manner of agencies, both in the UK and abroad.

It is therefore good to see groups like No Borders focusing attention on the controlling mechanism of CCTV.

There is an estimated half a million CCTV cameras in London, most of them installed and operated by private / corporate security. But there are also huge numbers of CCTV cameras directly linked to police control centres. Figures obtained by the BBC put the number at 7431, compared to 326 in Paris, 82 in Sydney, and 71 in San Francisco.

Academic research has cast a great deal of doubt over the effectiveness of CCTV in cutting crime – key research from Cardiff University claimed that CCTV alone had no effect in reducing the level of street crime. But what it does do is provide corporate and state authorities with an unprecedented level of surveillance and social control.

No Borders will be holding two demonstrations. “One will be at St. Pancras, where the UK (e-)border agency put up their controls in the middle of London. The second one will be at Piccadilly Circus where, while commuters, tourists and clubbers stare at the never-ending stream of commercials at ground level, they themselves are under constant observation by security and police in their cosy CCTV headquarters below ground.”

Anonymity: or how I learnt to stop worrying about FIT and masked up well

2010-01-18T06:11:00.000-08:00

(This article was posted on indymedia, but caught our eye, and we thought it merited a re-print... )

A note on caution and paranoia:

It will be suggested that the threat of surveillance we outline here is exaggerated and paranoid. So we thought it necessary to clarify our stance. We choose to prepare for the worst case scenario. We accept that, for instance, the chance of the police both bothering to, and being able to obtain CCTV from third parties in the event of most “public order” situations is low. However, we believe to prepare for the fact that they may is cautious. We would be paranoid if our fears stopped us from acting, but careless if we did not let our fear inform us to prepare.

This has been a long time coming for us to write. Over the past few years we have seen an huge increase in police surveillance at demos. This has taken many forms: Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) - The FIT was formed in the early 1990's. Its purpose is to film, photograph and watch us whilst in plain sight, wearing blue and yellow fluorescent jackets. Their aim is to intimidate us. The FIT have been highly effectively combated at demos by the tactics developed by FITwatch, please see www.fitwatch.blogspot.com if you haven't already and join their fantastic work.

Evidence Gathering Teams (EGT) Similar to FIT, the EGT film demonstrations and in effect have the same job, only they don't belong to the FIT unit. Similarly annoying and obnoxious, and as well targeted by FITwatch.

Drones Right, now this sounds really paranoid, and we would say it was, had it not happened recently (at the anti-bnp demonstrations against the red, white and blue festival last year), but the police may use unmanned drones to film demonstrations from the air. These may be nullified on demonstrations in the same way any police surveillance can, through proper clothing and masking up.

Helmet Cameras These are cameras attached to the side of cops' heads and look like small cylinders. Some may have sound recording. Fortunately, they are new and expensive, but are becoming slowly more common. In reports on the death of Ian Tomlinson and the G20 protests, senior police officers concluded that this was a more suitable surveillance tactic to FIT teams. This is because, though we may see the cameras, the “general public” will not, thus making the state look less authoritarian. Again, mask up.

CCTV Is supposedly everywhere in city centres where demonstrations tend to take place, but it isn't as common as they want you to think. Be wary, and look around before masking up and unmasking, but it shouldn't be hard to get out of the gaze of the cameras. Most commercial CCTV only points down to the doors of the shops it is there to protect. Recently, police have been equipped with portable CCTV robots that climb lamp posts and can be deployed on the routes of demonstrations. We should remind everyone that these are very expensive pieces of equipment. They are also no more effective than any other tactic if we protect our anonymity well.

We must be honest, we have not adapted to the increase in surveillance well. Our ideas of anonymity are still caught ten years ago, from the black blocks of Seattle and the summit protests. We need to accept that now we cannot simply get away with wear darkish clothing and half covering our faces. While that may make you hard to pick out of an identity parade by an individual officer, to positively identify you for your file, and is pretty effective against standard old grainy CCTV, it is not a match for modern surveillance. By trawling through hours of high definition footage, police have picked out people before and then long after they lifted a mask over their face, and proved it in court by pointing to distinguishing clothing, piercings, tattoo's or hair. They have pointed to people in the corner of shots, or half in shots, and identified them from their other footage. Police have also used footage to arrest and raid houses months after demonstrations. We do not wish to create fear or paranoia, but it is important not to underestimate the sometimes unbelievably tedious lengths cops will go in the attempt to secure protester convictions. Yet all this can be easily combated simply by masking up well.

So, why mask up on demos? The first and most obvious reason why we should wear masks on demos is to protect ourselves from the ever watchful eyes of the surveillance state. The police and intelligence services are using an increasing variety of methods to document and gather evidence at protests. By effectively masking up you avoid being caught on police evidence gathering footage and/or CCTV and can dodge having further information on yourself being put on the police protester database ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/police-surveillance-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth).

It does not matter if what you do is entirely peaceful, the police will still attempt to identify you, create a file and if possible prosecute you. Even the most law-abiding protesters have been the target of police investigation and prosecutions. If you are going to participate in direct action or confrontation with the cops then be especially aware that police will be pouring over video/photo footage of the event afterwards and will seek to pin-point known activists and recognisable faces. It is not advisable to engage in these activities without first masking up properly.

Secondly, even if you do not plan on participating in direct action or confrontation masking up allows you to give solidarity to those who do by hiding them within our ranks. It is much harder for the cops to identify and isolate masked up activists if they are part of a larger masked block or one of many similar dressed people.

A note of caution: It is often claimed by activists and liberals who are opposed to masking up that if you are proud of what you do you should not be afraid to show your face. Don’t listen to them. Be proud of what you are doing but mask up to avoid the inconvenience of getting nicked. The system does not reward our pride.

Effective Masking Masking up to avoid police surveillance properly involves more than simply wrapping a scarf or bandanna around your face. Effective masking up means consideration must be given to how you are dressed as well. Ideally we would all dress the same and mask up in the same way. However, where there is not a consensus on clothing it may be good to dress identically to your affinity group to at least make it a little bit harder. Here we will provide you with some tips but it is by no means the bible on masking up and the best advice is to just use your common sense and ingenuity.

Head and face: This is by far the easiest part of your body to be identified by and must be properly covered. People have been identified by the police on the basis of the cops recognising their hair and even their distinctive brow. The best advice is to make sure that no part of your head is showing; a hat pulled low with a scarf and a pair of sunglasses works well to cover most of your face. Remember that you need to stay masked at all times when police are filming. Try not to pull your mask right down if you need to eat or have a cigarette as that is an easy time to get snapped. Alternatively you can wrap a t-shirt round your head to give you the ninja-protester look (see image). When a section 60 A (A) order is being implemented and masking up not possible then wearing your hood up with a baseball cap pulled low and a pair of sunglasses helps to obscure most of your face especially from mounted cameras. It is paramount that you cover your hair!!!

Body: Cover all piercings/tattoos/scars that you can be identified by. Wear simple plain clothing all of one colour (it doesn’t have to be black!) and if a demo has called for a colour scheme then stick to it. Do not wear clothes with any visible distinctions that can be noted and used to identify you later. Wear an alternative coloured t-shirt and carry a different coloured jumped in your bag in case you need to quickly look like you’re not that person from just before who was masked up. Ideally, protester looking trousers (such as black combats) are not the best idea, unless suggested that all on the demo wear them, as they make disappearing away into a crowd once de-masked harder.

Shoes: Again, another way a lot of people get identified and pulled out of a crowd. Wear plain shoes with no visible markings on them and if you are wearing black, make sure they are black! Boots are good, but may create the same problems with de-masking as black combats. Undercover cops may often be identified by their shoes, let us not fall into the same trap.

Masking Up/De-masking: A classic mistake made is to mask up/de-mask at the wrong times. De-masking whilst still in a crowd is a good idea if you have just done something you would not like to be caught for as long as you do not keep wearing other bits of clothes you can be identified by. After an action it is important to not de-mask in an area where there are cops or CCTV you can be identified by. For more info on masking and riot situations read http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2010015807.php

Remember Gaza Smash EDO

2010-01-16T09:02:00.000-08:00

Brighton Monday 18th January. 1pm at the Wild Park Café

Smash Edo has attracted a remarkable degree of attention from the ACPO ‘domestic extremism’ units for their long running protests against Brighton based arms manufacturer EDO. Jan 18th looks likely to be a lively affair, and no doubt FIT will be there in number. So, of course, will FITwatchers.

From the Smash Edo website:

For three weeks in January 2009, the bombs rained down on Gaza. At the end of Israel's brutal bombing campaign and ground offensive over 1400 Palestinians had been murdered, including 314 children.

Here in Brighton EDO MBM/ITT manufacture some of the weapons components that devastated so many lives. All over the world thousands of people watched appalled at the carnage on the streets of Gaza. Thousands marched and raged at the destruction of peoples' homes and lives. On January 18th 2010, the anniversary of the final day of Operation Cast Lead, we will come together to remember the people of Gaza.

We will not allow those who supported their pain and profited from their suffering to go unchallenged. We will not let this genocide be forgotten. On the first anniversary after their deaths, we will rise up. We will take to the streets. We will remember...

Belated Fitwatch Review of 2009

2010-01-12T14:11:00.000-08:00

Throughout the course of 2009, the police have been forced to justify their public order tactics through media and governmental pressure, but also through militancy. From Fitwatchers blocking cameras to Gaza protesters ripping up the confines of their protest pen, people started refusing to accept repressive policing at ground level. Tactics, such as overt filming began to provoke the disorder they were designed to prevent, forcing the police, at times, to question the tactics utilised on the ground – either by not deploying cameras in the first place or by withdrawing.

Undeniably, the policing of the G20 and the death of Ian Tomlinson had the biggest impact on protest policing in 2009. Hyped out of all proportion by Superintendent David Hartshorn with his infamous “summer of rage” proclamations, the G20 was always going to bloody, but Tomlinson’s death and the police attempted cover-up combined with countless other stories of police violence led to blood on the hands of the police and investigations into public order policing.

However, up until a pesky banker gave The Guardian footage depicting the true circumstances behind Tomlinson’s death, the media were happy to buy into the Met’s “summer of rage” fallacy. Looped footage showed black clad people breaking through police lines. Film of those covered in blood was narrated as protester rather than police violence. The people fighting back were labelled as “troublemakers” and “rent-a-mob” when they should have been hailed for the courage and determination shown in rebelling against a repressive policing operation.

Whilst for those of us used to police violence and lies, the G20 was nothing new, for those who do not have regular contact with the police, the fabrication was truly shocking. For the rest of us, used to reading the fiction masquerading as fact in police notebooks, it confirmed a nasty suspicion.

Following the release of the video, the floodgates opened for stories of G20 police brutality from the clearing of the Climate Camp, to Nicole Fisher’s disservice to any males assaulted by the police by stating her treatment at the hands of former FIT officer Delory Smellie was worse because of her gender.

Fitwatch research and experience, both pre and post G20, has been at the heart of many media revelations in papers diverse as The Guardian and the Financial Times, and journalists such as Marc Vallee have done amazing work in ensuring these stories have been covered. Many of the stories focussed on the existence and scope of protester databases, and getting this information into the public domain has been a major achievement.

However, as good as some of these stories have been, the mainstream media has show reluctance endorsing the true source of these revelations – direct action. It has only been through the arrests of Fitwatchers for blocking cameras that we have been able to force the cops into court to justify their collection and retention of data. Through directly challenging their behaviour we have forced the police to account for themselves – something which would never have happened if we’d left this area to NGOs. Liberty chose a weak case to fight this issue and were happy to lap up the police lies in the civil courts. Liberty eventually won the Wood judgement, but only after Fitwatch revelations exposed the scope of data retention.

Personal stories made up another part of the media interest – The Guardian gave front page coverage to the story of two fitwatchers violently arrested and imprisoned for taking photographs of cops at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp. This story was picked up by national and local media, including Channel 4, The Daily Mail, and regional BBC.

2009 started with fear and paranoia with the advent of S76 making photographing police officers a terrorist offence. However, this was the year when photographers fought back, and groups such as I’m A Photographer Not a Terrorist have forced the police to admit the legislation is “unlikely to be used”, and have established a successful campaign not only against S76 but against the use of S44 stop and searches of photographers. This has now become a major issue with news stories regularly appearing covering the arrests and mistreatment of photographers.

Public order policing has undoubtedly changed throughout the course of 2009 in a way none of us would have predicted. Climate Camp at Blackheath saw a virtually non existent police presence – although it must be remembered that CCTV from a cherry picker monitored everything happening. Disarm DSEi protests, synonymous with repressive policing, were treated with this same light touch, with protesters allowed to gather and march without being kettled for the first time in ten years.

However, as welcome as these changes have been, they have not been universal. Animal rights protesters continue to face harassment and intimidation. Young Asian males are subject to harassment on all protests they attend. And, however much we hate the EDL, the systematic documenting of their demonstrations has to be recognised.

We have achieved a lot in 2009, but there is a long way to go. Whilst NETCU and the other extremist units have come under fire, they will continue their shadowy existence and FIT will still operate. Climate Camp and DSEi were policed overwhelmingly by FIT officers – and we need to examine how we tackle FIT when they are not shoving cameras in our faces.

Data gathering hasn’t gone away, but it has been exposed, and it is being challenged. Round two of the Fitwatch trials begin in March when the first case for obstruction comes to appeal. We have barely scratched the surface of the scope of data gathering, and hopefully these appeals will bring more clarity to the processes used to document protesters.

Already 2010 has seen the European Court in Strasbourg finding the use of Section 44 searches at DSEi in 2003 was in contravention of Article 8 right to privacy, and the police admitting an unspecified number of people were unlawfully stopped and searched at Kingsnorth. There is a real chance to change public order policing and we must keep up the pressure and continue to hold the police to account wherever we are - in the courts, the media, and on the streets.

Mass arrests, cages and deportations - Copenhagen COP15

2009-12-16T09:02:00.000-08:00

Recent protest at the COP15 summit in Copenhagen saw the arrest of hundreds of protesters, up to 900 on Saturday’s march. They were then held in wire cages set up in a warehouse on the edges of the city for up to 12 hours under legislation entitling the police to make ‘preventative arrests’. Most were then released, but those charged with offences, including very minor public order offences, were deported.

The arrest of such large numbers of people signalled a clear strategy of clamping down on potentially disorderly protest, a policy of prevention being better than cure. But while many UK protesters are shocked by the treatment, it is an approach to policing they should be used to. The Danish police have clearly learned a lot from the Met.

The Politi have simply put their own slant on the British tactics of kettling. On Saturday thousands amassed for a mass march to the COP15 centre, but the police had already decided that sections of the march would never reach their destination. Police vehicles hurtled though the crowd, supported by riot police to break up the demonstration into smaller, more controllable sections. Initially they detained everyone who would sit still on the streets for several hours. They then transferred people to specially set up cages, where people were held for up to 12 hours.

The arrest of such large numbers clearly had a marked effect on the demonstration. Set up to target the ‘black blocks’ the arrests encompassed a wide range of people, including journalists, frightened teenagers and, bizarrely, a group of Hare Krishna. The more clued up black blocks, meanwhile, evaded the arrests and set about sporadic rioting in another area of the city.

The real danger of police tactics like these, is that they have the potential to deter people from taking part in large scale protests at European summits – whether that be protests against climate change, or against the domination of the G8 or WTO. In the UK, the numbers involved in political protest dropped markedly as kettling became more commonplace - as people were simply worn down by constantly having to face hours in police cordons every time they took to the streets.

It is yet to be seen whether the kettling tactics employed at COP15 by the Danish police are used more extensively from now on. Mass preventative arrests are a significant move away from the crowd dispersal techniques – tear gas, baton strikes etc - more normally seen in Europe, (although such dispersal methods were also used in Copenhagen, particularly when disorder was sporadic or unexpected and the police were unable to prepare).

There will undoubtedly be legal challenge to the Danish policing, as the arrests were arbitrary and the detention disproportionate. But political activists also need to resist this particular form of police bullying from the ground up. Anyone heading for the next summit may want to bear in mind that mass containment is easy for the police to pull off when people are passively prepared to be contained. Attempting to contain a resistant crowd is whole different ball game.

See also

Emily Apple, Comment is Free

and

Rights Groups press for Inquiry

HMIC report - FITwatch press release

2009-11-26T04:44:00.000-08:00

FITwatch welcomes Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary's criticisms of public order policing but warns much more must be done.

FITwatch is pleased HM Chief Inspector Denis O’Connor has taken on board many of our concerns in his damning report ‘Adapting to Protest: Strengthening the British model of policing’. The moves by HMIC to ensure that policing is lawful, consistent and accountable are to be welcomed. However, the recommendations may be insufficient to change a culture of policing that has become overly reliant on surveillance and intelligence.

FITwatch activist Val Swain said: ‘HMIC’s report is a strong criticism of current policing and rightly so. However HMIC’s recommendations simply to clarify the legal framework for the use of overt photography by FITs and other police units will not be enough to bring about the culture change that is needed. If Mr O’Connor wants a return to ‘traditional’ British policing, there has to be a move away from the current intelligence-led approach."

FITwatch also welcomes HMIC’s recommendation to review the status of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to ensure transparency and accountability. Presently ACPO is wholly unaccountable, setting the legislative agenda and implementing intelligence-lead policing through three ‘domestic extremism’ units (1) run by Anton Setchell.

The domestic extremism units hold personal data on thousands of people involved in political protest. There are also fears that this 'intelligence' is disseminated to private companies through the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU) which works closely to support businesses that are the focus of protesters concerns. These secretive, shadowy units operate outside of the structure of the British police and are a law unto themselves. FITwatch hope during the course of the review ACPO come clean about the extent of these units operations and the data that they hold.

Val Swain said: ‘While we welcome this first step, we need to go much further than HMIC’s recommendations. What we need is an actual change in the culture of public order policing. The way that the police behave in relation to protest, public order situations, and indeed the public generally, must differ from what has gone before. The relentless photographing and filming of protesters, the tracking of their cars, the abuse of police powers to gather their personal details must stop. FITwatch will carry on campaigning until it does.’

Notes
(1) The domestic terrorism units under ACPO control are: NETCU (national extremism tactical co-ordination unit); NPOIU (national public order intelligence unit) and NDET (national domestic extremism team)

Fitwatch:
Over two years we have highlighted excessive surveillance tactics, including overt photography, used by the Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) to prevent legitimate political protest.

FITwatch has also obtained evidence of an image database of protesters, operated by the Public Order Intelligence Unit (CO11) based at New Scotland Yard. They had initially denied that they ran their own protester database, but taking the stand at a recent trial of FITwatch activists, Superintendent Hartshorn, a senior officer at CO11, admitted that CO11 held a database containing the name and photographic image of people they had noted attending political protests.

Police arrest innocent people to get their details on the DNA database

2009-11-24T02:16:00.000-08:00

The Human Genetics Commission has accused police of arresting people purely to get their details on the police DNA database.

Speaking on radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Prof Jonathon Montgomery from the Human Genetics Commission said that they had received evidence that police were deliberately making arrests in order to obtain DNA samples. He said that the evidence had originated “from a convincing source – a retired senior police officer.”

The former head of ACPO, Chris Fox, also speaking on the programme, admitted he was ‘uncomfortable’ with the retention of DNA, but defended the police’s rights to collect data on the population.

“The police have always held data on innocent people”, said Chris Fox. “It is the first chain of the intelligence route…the point about intelligence is that it’s weeded – thrown away when it is found to be no good. The DNA database isn’t.”

Those of us with less faith in the ‘weeding’ ability of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit may find this distinction a little weak.

Support Fitwatch - Get a Copy of Excessive Force - a comix anthology against police

2009-11-20T09:55:00.000-08:00

Police everywhere, justice nowhere

Profits from Excessive Force will go towards FITwatch and the Legal Defence and Monitoring Group both of whom work towards ending police repression.

Featuring 19 exciting new and up-and-coming graphic artists this is an comics anthology against the police.

Whether drawing on personal experiences or imagined stories about modern policing one theme runs through: a shared view of brutal, oppressive policing. Policing that does more harm than good, and a system which hinders, rather than encourages freedom of expression. Or more simply put: acts like an Excessive Force.

Featuring work by: Stephanie McMillan, Ken Dahl, Scott Smith, Edd Baldry, Jimi Gherkin, and many others, they all artfully present their take on the police, with a fine mixture of humour, tragedy, anger and optimism.

Get a copy from http://www.lasthours.org.uk/excessive-force/

FITwatch accuses ACPO boss, Sir Hugh Orde, of 'playing politics' before publication of HMIC report which is certain to further criticise the police’s

2009-11-13T08:23:00.000-08:00

As FITwatchers eagerly await the publication of the final part of the HMIC (1) report ‘Adapting to Protest’, we note the thinly disguised attempt by Sir Hugh Orde, ACPO’s president (2), to pre-empt what is expected to be a highly critical report into police behaviour towards legitimate public protest.

In a series of surprisingly frank comments in yesterday’s press, Sir Hugh admits that ACPO-controlled domestic extremism units (3) involved in surveillance of protestors are unnecessary and ‘can go tomorrow’, though he adds that monitoring of protestors should continue under ‘independent regulation’. We’d love to hear Sir Hugh’s definition of ‘independent’.

FITwatch has been monitoring the collection of data for use by the ACPO domestic extremism units (3) for two years and is convinced that the police and ACPO are abusing their powers by collecting and collating data unlawfully. We believe such activities fall foul of European and UK laws on the processing of data and breach of privacy. We therefore welcome the disbanding of the domestic extremism units, saving millions of pounds of public money; one unit, The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) alone has an annual budget of £5 million and a staff of 60 to 70 officers (4).

FITwatch is convinced that ACPO has become a law unto itself, dictating the law-making agenda to government, while remaining wholly unaccountable. ACPO, the Companies House-registered body, is also involved in a number of questionable commercial activities which generate substantial profits. We welcome Orde’s belated admission, therefore, that ACPO is out of control and must become a statutory body.

FITwatch rejects Sir Hugh’s plea to continue monitoring protestors. Fitwatch activist Val Swain said: ‘There is no need to keep tabs on political protesters at all, and it should stop. There is no reason why criminal activity carried out in the course of protest should be treated in any way differently from criminal activity elsewhere. There is no need for separate units, special functions or special surveillance teams that spend hours on end doing nothing more useful than photographing protesters. It is a huge waste of public money and police resources, and it is a disproportionate interference in civil rights. This is a last ditch attempt by ACPO to retain control of these units under 'independent regulation'. ACPO has operated a deliberate shroud of secrecy, keeping the details of their activities hidden even from regulatory bodies such as the Metropolitan police authority. Before the three domestic extremism units are wound up, however, they should come clean about the extent of data they have access to, and the sort of data they keep, and the ways in which their databases operate’.

Notes

(1) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
(2) Association of Chief Police Officers
(3) NETCU (national extremism tactical co-ordination unit), NPOIU (national public order intelligence unit) and NDET (national domestic extremism team)
(4) parliamentary question on 10 November 2009 about the NPIOU asked by Dai Davies MP to Secretary of State for the Home Department

Controversial Domestic Extremist Units Make Desperate Raids to Justify Existence

2009-11-11T02:30:00.001-08:00

MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTROVERSIAL DOMESTIC EXTREMIST UNITS MAKE DESPERATE RAIDS TO JUSTIFY EXISTENCE

Following a damning series of articles in The Guardian, the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU), and their sister organisation the National Domestic Extremist Team (NDET) are attempting to justify their existence by raiding and arresting four animal rights activists for conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

NETCU and NDET are run by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Denis O'Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, will next month release the findings of his national review of policing of protests and has already signalled he anticipates wide scale change. His inspectors are considering a complete overhaul of the ACPO units, which they have been told lack statutory accountability.

Wearing balaclavas, police officers from four different forces carried out the raids yesterday, smashing through doors and spending over ten hours searching two houses. Witnesses to one of the raids described the police as “intimidating” and “threatening”.

Lynn Sawyer - a resident of one of the houses - who was not arrested stated “This was a massive fishing expedition to promote NETCU’s facade of effectiveness whilst attempting to stop protest through pure terrorisation.”

Apart from computers and mobile phones, the police were also interested in financial documents, evidence of travel and association in support of animal rights extremism. Evidence of such extremism included banners, leaflets and a poster from VIVA, a well respected vegetarian/vegan organisation.

Fitwatch activist Emily Apple stated that “This was an entirely disproportionate policing operation undertaken by an increasingly desperate unit. The threatening nature of these raids and using items such as NGO posters and leaflets as evidence of extremism demonstrate NDET’s dubious definition of domestic extremism and their willingness to intimidate protesters and criminalise dissent.”

Notes for Editors:
1. More information on The Guardian’s investigation - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-extremism
2. A third ACPO unit dealing with domestic extremism, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, is also being investigated.
3. The term “domestic extremism” does not have a legal definition and has been invented by these units.
4. VIVA are supported by a wide range of people including Joanna Lumley, Michael Mansfield QC and Sir Paul McCartney.

FITwatch exposes extent of police protester database.

2009-10-16T13:00:00.000-07:00

Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) have been a familiar sight at demonstrations for years, and many activists have had first hand experience of their particular brand of harassment and intimidation. But although it is well known that they keep data on ‘known’ activists, including photos for their ‘spotter cards’, the full details of how extensive their database is, and how that data is used is only just beginning to surface.

FITwatch obtained evidence last December that the Metropolitan police places the personal data of political protesters onto their criminal intelligence database (Crimint), through the production of 'intelligence reports' by Forward Intelligence Teams In a subsequent Guardian investigation senior Met officers admitted the database included the names of regular attendees at political protest, regardless of whether or not they had done anything unlawful.

FITwatch has now obtained evidence of a further, image database of protesters, operated by the Public Order Intelligence Unit (CO11) based at New Scotland Yard. They had initially denied that they ran their own protester database, but taking the stand at a recent trial of FITwatch activists, Superintendent Hartshorn, a senior officer at CO11, admitted that they did just that. CO11 held, he said, a database containing the name and photographic image of people they had noted attending political protest.

Entries on that database are identified with a ‘unique reference number’ or URN. This makes each entry capable of being searched and cross referenced across all police forces and agencies. In effect, this means that CO11 can create a police file capable of drawing together all police information relating to an individual – police checks on their car, ‘intelligence reports’ written at demonstrations, stop and search records – even if that person has never been arrested, let alone convicted.

Superintendent Hartshorn identified how individuals were singled out for inclusion in the database. The police needed, he said, ‘two strands of intelligence’. One strand may be a ‘more than passing contact’ during a protest or demonstration with an individual who is already on that database. The other may be a subjective assessment of a FIT officer on the way someone was ‘behaving’. Previously the police have admitted that membership of an organisation such as ‘Stop the War’ was sufficient to justify an ‘interest’.

The Gaza demonstration at which the FITwatch activists were arrested was a classic example of how easy it is to get an entry on the CO11 database. This particular demonstration was quite calm, but there had been disorder at previous demonstrations, primarily as a result of police attempting to force protesters into a police pen.

FITwatch activists had been arrested after FIT camera teams who were filming and photographing people on the demonstration were obstructed. One of the Forward Intelligence Teams had spent over a quarter of an hour targeting a small group of Asian lads, repeatedly taking their photographs, and tailing them through the demonstration. In court, FIT officers complained that even after a quarter of an hour they had not obtained photographs sufficient for intelligence purposes, but admitted they had no reason to suspect this group had committed any criminal offence, or that they intended to do so. They were targeted only because they were ‘young and male, and moved through the demonstration as a group’. ‘Young and male’ protesters, they said, had been involved in previous disorder.

Seemingly the police feel that fitting such a broad profile justifies intrusive and intimidating surveillance, and the production of a police file.

The police appear to be able to collect and collate personal data on people without any restriction or accountability. There is no body that regulates this or provides oversight. They write their own rules.

FITwatch has for the last two years set out to disrupt and obstruct police data gathering on political protests, and we make no apologies for doing that. Not only has FITwatch brought FIT to public attention in a way that no other campaign has done, the use of direct action by FITwatch has been an effective obstacle to police gathering of data at political meetings, rallies and demonstrations.

FITwatch will continue to resist and challenge FIT operations, but we do need help. If you are interested in getting involved or in supporting us in any way, please get in touch – e-mail us at defycops@yahoo.co.uk.

Police vehicle surveillance – the use of Automatic Number Plate Readers at climate camp protests.

2009-10-13T08:43:00.000-07:00

This weekend is the Climate Camp Swoop, and environmental activists will be heading to Radcliffe power station in Nottingham for the mass action. Many will be travelling by road, but Climate Camp activists driving to Radcliffe on the 17th October should be prepared to take a few precautions if they want to avoid being picked up by vehicle surveillance.

Police ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Reader) units have been used before at Climate Camp actions to alert police to the arrival of ‘known’ activists. Police at Kingsnorth used ANPR to monitor and intercept activist cars as they arrived. It is possible that a similar strategy will be used in Nottingham.

The police have for some years been collecting the vehicle registration numbers of vehicles used to get to protests, gatherings and even meetings. If your registration number is on this list, it could be picked up by the ANPR system.

How does ANPR work?

Motorways have permanent ANPR cameras, but mobile units can also be used on minor roads. Mobile ANPR units can be covert and hard to spot, but they are usually transit sized vans marked with camera symbols.

The cameras automatically read the number plates of cars passing by. The on-board computer then checks the numbers against a number of different databases. This is usually car registration, insurance, MOT etc, but the ANPR units can also check if your car is on a list of ‘protest’ vehicles.

If the ANPR flags up a ‘hit’ the police can be instructed either to simply note the fact you have arrived (perhaps flagging you up for more targeted surveillance), or to intercept the car. If you are stopped the police have powers to search the car similar to those they would use on a pedestrian (see below).

How do I avoid getting picked up by ANPR?

This is a fairly new police tactic, so advice in avoiding ANPR is based on informed guesswork only. There are no guarantees!

If possible, drive a car that has never been used to get to a protest or gathering before. In theory at least, if you have not used your car in ‘protest related activity’ before, it should not be picked up.

Borrow a vehicle from friends and family rather than hire one. Hire cars were routinely picked up by ANPR readers in Kingsnorth, so are not the ideal choice!
Don’t take a car without insurance and MOT – ANPRs are routinely used to pick up cars that are not street legal.

Take a longer, quieter route in. At Kingsnorth ANPR was put on the major access routes. The police have limited ANPR resources and can’t put all roads under surveillance, although they will try to cover those routes that are hardest to avoid.

Get dirty. ANPR readers need a standard, UK, clean number plate to get a read. Non-standard number plates, foreign plates and plates that are very dirty cause problems for the ANPR. You might want to drive down a very wet muddy road before you get there.

What should I do if notice an ANPR unit by the side of the road?

Note down all the details – location, direction, time etc – and let others know who may be travelling that way. And please tell us – the more info we have, the better we can keep track of what they are up to.

What powers do they have to stop and search a vehicle?

The police have the power to stop any vehicle, and ask the driver for their driving licence. Contrary to what some coppers say, you do not have to carry your driving licence with you, although you can be asked to produce it at a police station of your choice within seven days.

The driver of the vehicle is obliged to give their name, address and date of birth (s164 s165 Road Traffic Act 1988). The police have NO powers to demand the names and addresses of passengers. If they ask anyone other than the driver for their details they should be politely told where to go.

Police can carry out the stop and search of a vehicle under the same provisions applying to people on foot. A section 60 order, if in place, also applies to vehicles. Otherwise the police can search under PACE, but need the normal reasonable suspicion that they may find weapons, articles that could be used to cause criminal damage etc. They do not need the owners consent.

IF YOU ARE NOTICE ANPR CAMERAS EN ROUTE, OR IF YOUR VEHICLE IS STOPPED BY POLICE ON THE WAY TO THE CLIMATE CAMP ACTION, PLEASE LET US KNOW AT FITWATCH.

Defycops@yahoo.co.uk.

'terrorist' photography

2009-09-21T05:10:00.001-07:00

This is slightly old news now - had meant to put this on the blog a while back, but you know how it is. Anyway, this is on the NUJ site, and it's stuff I think FITwatchers will want to know about.

The Met has been pressured into changing its guidelines on restricting photography (see previous FITwatch post), after they turned out to be, er, bullshit.

"The original guidelines issued in July had been attacked by the NUJ as "hugely misleading" for stating that under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 police and community support officers had the right to demand to see photographs held in mobile phones and digital cameras.

"To suggest that police have the power to see anyone's photos is not just hugely misleading, it's factually wrong", said NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff.

The revised guidelines clarify that officers can only inspect such photographs under section 43 if the photographer is actually suspected of being a terrorist, and that a court order may be needed to view journalistic materials, such as digital photographs or notebooks. See www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm "

Also:"The Home Office have since issued a written circular detailing police powers under sections 43 and 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, following correspondence with NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear.

The new circular clarifies that neither section permits police officers to prohibit photography by either the press or members of the public: www.photo-terror.notlong.com"http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0909phot.html

Where's all the coppers then? A first impression of DSEi policing.

2009-09-10T02:59:00.000-07:00

Well, it wasn’t like demos of old, that is for sure. As around 200 protesters gathered for a protest in the City against the DSEi arms fair, many clad in hoodies and face masks, the lack of police was quite remarkable. There was no more than, say, 20 police in uniform, all FIT, with no police at all deployed to escort or steward the crowd. I have never seen a demonstration so lightly policed.

And there were no cameras. Chief Inspector Matt Twist stated that cameras would not be deployed ‘unless they were needed’. He was ‘quite relaxed and happy about the whole thing’, he said. In the event they were never deployed. Despite damage to windows and the invasion of offices, Twist retained his relaxed approach, and police made no attempt to intervene whatsoever. “Sorry, after the G20, we’re not allowed to do anything”, was the blatant mistruth he fed to office workers. But the protesters weren’t complaining, and the many journalists that had turned up for a ‘police mistreat demonstrators’ story went away empty handed, which appeared to be the key objective of the Met's strategy.

The absence of FIT cameras was undoubtedly down to the fact that deploying camera teams was likely to make them a focus for hostility, and any confrontation with the crowd was something they desperately wanted to avoid. It is true that the protest was taking place in one of the most heavily CCTV’d places in the world, something that made the lack of FIT cameras more bearable for the police. But even in the City, they had always used FIT cameras in the past. CCTV has limitations that hand held, portable, position-able cameras do not. If this isn’t a victory for street-based direct action, I don’t know what is.

Of course, FIT were still present and active. They relied instead on other forms of data gathering, making constant audio recordings and written notes. Twist bragged that he, personally, knew the identity of everyone on the march. And they will have spent long hours trawling around the companies later for their CCTV.

But the crucial fact in all of this was that – for the first time in many years - the police were forced to allow a protest such as this to take place. They were not able to shut it down beforehand, or to prevent people gathering. They could not harass and hassle individuals, they could not intimidate and frighten. They had to stand off and let it happen.

Long may it continue.

Policing at climate camp

2009-09-05T09:43:00.000-07:00

Climate camp was something of a surreal experience after the aggressive policing and constant stop and searches of previous camps. There can be no denying that the public order cops were on the back foot, unable to do anything but smile and facilitate the camp, no matter what sort of provocation came their way. Even a mass outing to Canary Wharf on Friday did nothing to dampen their spirit of ‘facilitation’, and they left the ‘robust policing’ to the hoards of private security in grey suits.

To have forced the police to do back down, and to change their policing so completely from previous climate camps, is no small achievement. Climate camp legal team have put a lot of pressure on the police from all sorts of directions, and they should be given the credit for us all being able to come and go from the camp without the sort of shit we’ve had to put up with before. And they have done this without making concessions and without stirring up the good protester / bad protester rift that many liberals try to impose.

Police (and FIT) harassment was gone (for the time being at least), but police surveillance proved a harder nut to crack. Throughout the camp, remote cameras propped up on a cherry picker were able to pick out new and familiar faces for the FIT teams to focus on. FIT cops stationed at a camp set up a couple of miles away were able to get a direct feed from the camera, and from the helicopter that hovered around from time to time, without needing to be on the ground.

From the cherry picker, FIT could get high quality images of activists training on tripods, with lock on devices, and for mass actions. They were able to maintain, in the words of the Silver command Julia Pendry, an ‘information flow’.

FIT officers were also present at the SWOOP meet up points, although without their usual distinctive FIT jackets. Sgt Graham Wettone, a long standing FIT officer, insisted as he hung around watching the crowd at Bank that he was ‘just on normal duties’. In the end he had to be introduced by FITwatchers to the waiting crowd and hoards of press.

By the end of the camp, the veneer had slipped a bit. FIT teams were back, monitoring and photographing actions at Shell and RBS, although happily they met with some determined opposition.

Overall, we still have some work to do in countering police surveillance from CCTV and remote cameras stationed on cherry pickers. But there is no denying that FIT were on the back foot. They weren’t able to get away with the harassment and intimidation they are used to dishing out, and that in itself is one-up to us. Confidence is growing that we can now defeat the FIT, as is determination that we will not be their willing victims. Bring it on.

Pics: Superintendent Julia Pendry, Silver command at climate camp; a Barclays security guard at Barclays protest; Ian Caswell, one of the few regular FIT cops to make an appearance at camp; cameras and microwave transmitter mounted on cherry picker overlooking climate camp.

Fitwatching at Climate Camp RBS Protest

2009-09-02T04:27:00.000-07:00

After a week of hiding in the shadows, FIT finally showed themselves with their traditional blue tabards and cameraman on Tuesday's action against RBS.

However, their job was not made easy, and they were met by fitwatchers who ensured they had a hard time gathering the data they wanted on the protesters.

More information and comment on climate camp policing to follow soon.

Spotter Cards

2009-08-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

A hand picked selection of FIT cops and photogs for this years climate camp. Click on the above for downloadable and printable images - get all four for the best guide to who's who in the FIT. Why not play a bit of FITwatch bingo? See how many you can tick off - Special FITwatch prize to whoever sends in the most pics of this 'orrible lot. Don't know what it'll be, but I'm sure we'll think of something...

FIT at the Red White and Blue

2009-08-24T05:58:00.000-07:00

Some usual FIT faces were present to keep a close eye on protests against the Red White and Blue BNP fest in Derbyshire:

Ian Skivens, CO 5494 (top left), Paul

Mather 4551 and

Cowlin CO 5466. (below)

Plus a load of local snappers, a drone AND a helicopter.

Pictures thanks to Tash

How 'charming' will the Met be at this year's climate camp?

2009-08-21T02:04:00.000-07:00

As the open letter from climate camp to the Met clearly states, the police do not have a happy record when it comes to climate camp. There have been blanket stop and searches, long periods of containment, and endlessly invasive surveillance. FIT have had a prominent role, and a carte blanche to do what they want, accumulating personal data from stop and search, and obtaining photographic images of everyone attending. At Kingsnorth last year even journalists were hassled, followed and filmed, while FITwatchers were violently arrested and held for four days in prison for taking photos of police officers and asking for their numbers.

This year it will all be different, we are told. The Met will be smiley and chatty, happy to communicate and negotiate with protesters. There'll be no heads busted or shields shoved in people's faces, no kettling, no night flights from the helicopter, no verbal abuse from police officers and no unlawful stop and searches.

The Met have promised a a "'community-style' policing operation that will limit the use of surveillance units and stop-and-searches wherever possible." according to the Guardian. Which sounds good. But what exactly does 'wherever possible' mean? And how much will surveillance be 'limited'?

According to the legal team, the police have said that "searches and FIT will not be over used as a tactic but FIT will be present as the Camp forms and people arrive and for the swoop." Presumably, once everyone has arrived, and they have taken the pics and identified this years prime 'targets', the FIT will be content to take a less prominent role anyway. As was documented in the report of policing on Kingsnorth, they have their covert surveillance operatives to take over then anyway.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, perhaps?

Police surveillance reaches new heights?

2009-08-14T13:28:00.000-07:00

According to the BBC police have planned to use an 'unmanned small drone aircraft' to video and monitor this weekends BNP meet, or at least the protests taking place against it. A couple of months ago drones were also used to spy on the solstice celebrations at Stonehenge.

The use by police of unmanned drones with cameras is nothing new. Britains first drone was introduced by Liverpool police as long as two years ago.

But it seems the use of these things may be becoming increasingly popular in the war against... um...druids, hippies and anti-fascists apparently.

Picture courtesy of Schnews

Fitwatch Call - DISARM DSEi Meeting - 16th August

2009-08-12T01:54:00.000-07:00

Resist the FIT Teams at the DISARM DSEi public meeting.

1:45pm, Calthorpe Arms, Grays Inn Road (nearest tubes Russell Square and Kings Cross).

Just under two and a half years ago, the first Fitwatch action occurred outside a DISARM DSEi public meeting.

Despite vast amounts of intimidation and repression, Fitwatch has gone from strength to strength, and now people all over the country are taking measures to combat the invasive tactics of harassment style policing.

Traditionally, DSEi protests and meetings have attracted large numbers of FIT - although last week at a demo against the organisers of DSEi (Clarion Events) in Hatton Gardens, only Discombe turned up, and stood looking very sheepish with two City cops on the other side of the road. And, whilst he made copious notes, no photographer was present, and people were allowed to freely demonstrate.

However, since DISARM DSEi was formed in 2003, there has not been a public meeting where FIT have not turned up. We are calling for anyone who has ever thought about engaging in Fitwatch tactics to turn up to this meeting, confront them, and shut them down.

We will not put up with being photographed, monitored and entered into a database for turning up at a public meeting.

This year's DSEi will be the first major test of public order policing post G20 - let's set the tone at the public meeting and show any attempts to use FIT against us will be met with robust opposition and we will no longer be the passive recipients of repressive policing.

IPCC publish report into assault on woman at G20

2009-08-07T02:39:00.000-07:00

The report says not very much apart from reiterating the HMIC recommendations that there should be, on demonstations:

o No surprises – Protestors and public should be made aware of
likely police action in order to make informed decisions.
o A release plan to allow vulnerable or distressed persons or those
inadvertently caught up in the police containment to exit.
o A review of current public order training.

It also recommends the use by police of "portable matrix information boards with large-scale displays to assist communication."

And emphasised the Home Affairs Committee ruling that there is 'no excuse' for police to use containment on peaceful protesters.

FIT teams admit they are out to disrupt, not just to watch.

2009-08-04T02:19:00.000-07:00

“FIT deployment was highly effective and gained good intelligence and disruption”.

That was the view of a FIT co-ordinator of the operation at Kingsnorth Climate Camp last year.

A FIT Silver commander also commended the way that Kent police had used their ANPR (automatic number plate reader) to pick up protesters vehicles so that they could be stopped, questioned and searched. “an innovative use of legislation for disruption”, he applauded.

These are the remarkably frank comments contained in the Structured Debrief of Climate Camp policing. This was produced by the NPIA, the National Policing Improvement Agency, the structure which is supposed to spread best practice around the police forces.

In this case the best practice appears to be using legislation other than for the purposes it was intended, and doing their best to ‘disrupt’ protest.

The accompanying report from South Yorkshire police confirms the involvement of FIT in directing stop and search, and reveals that the massive collection of personal details through stop and search forms almost proved too much for police resources. “The capacity of the intelligence cell was clearly challenged when the scale of PACE/1 form submission became a reality.”

Stop and search legislation was written with the express intention of NOT allowing police to collect personal details in this way. So this must be yet another example of police interpreting legislation in an ‘innovative’ way.

Not only do the police feel confident in being able to bend the law as they see fit, they are arrogant enough to brag about it in a public document. Astounding.

ACPO 'extremist' units operating at Climate Camp

2009-07-28T01:08:00.000-07:00

The cop above is Ian Caswell, known to many of us as 1818 of South Yorkshire police - many thanks to those who have sent us his name! He is often seen in the company of PS Mark Sully, pictured here at the top of this post.

These two are regularly seen with their cameras at demonstrations, meetings and gatherings. They have been photographed at protests against Heckler and Koch in Nottingham, at No Borders demonstrations at Crawley, at Climate Camp in Kingsnorth, at Smash EDO in Brighton, and many more. They do not seem limited to one geographical area, but tirelessly travel up and down the country in search of protesters to photograph.

It is this aspect of their role that has led FITwatch to speculate that these two officers work for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). This is a sister organisation to NETCU, which many of the readers of this blog will be aware of. These organisations are run as private companies under the management of ACPO, who spend at least £2m a year on them. Their role is to provide intelligence (NPOIU), support the interests of business (NETCU) and manage prosecutions (NDET - National Domestic Extremism Team).

The recent report on the policing of Climate Camp by South Yorkshire police provides evidence that we were correct. A debrief report, containing comments from individual officers, makes frequent mention of the role of NPOIU at the Camp in managing FIT teams and surveillance in general - both overt and covert. It also contains one comment commending PS Sully in particular for his role as the FIT's NPOIU manager.

The NPOIU collects and collates huge amounts of data. Despite being a private company it has access to police databases. This information is presumably made available to NETCU. How much information they deem appropriate to pass on to the private sector businesses they support (EDO, Heckler and Koch etc) is anyone's guess.

Carswell and Sully are, then, in a strange position. They are serving police officers, apparently working for a private company. It is not clear whether they are contracted to the NPOIU, or are working on secondment. FITwatchers who find themselves standing in the way of their cameras may want to speculate as to whether there is a criminal offence of obstructing a police officer who isn't really a police officer....

Watching Them Watching Us

2009-07-22T06:24:00.000-07:00

An article by John Q Publican which first appeared on Police State UK

Surveillance, it seems to me, comes in two categories differentiated by purpose; that is, all surveillance efforts will fulfill one, or both in some mixture, of two purposes. The first is the easiest, and the most etymologically obvious: surveillance is investigative.

A typical example of such surveillance work would be a phone tap. You initiate a phone tap to find out things you didn’t know before; it is an investigative tool. A point-to-point communication which should thus limit information exposure is compromised by external surveillance, permitting the watchers to learn things they would otherwise be unable to learn. But it is worth noting that this investigative function for surveillance is effective precisely in so far as it is covert; a subject aware of observation behaves differently.

This, of course, is the rationale behind armed guards in front of public buildings, and bobbies walking a beat: “showing the uniform”. The pre-supposition is that highly visible surveillance will act as a deterrent. Such surveillance is therefore distinct from investigative surveillance in both function and form. CCTV cameras watch our streets dumbly and permanently; I’ve worked a CCTV monitoring job for Winchester City Council. We had a forensic role; if an incident occurred on camera we could work to gather effective evidence by focusing on faces and recording time-stamp data. But primarily CCTV cameras function as a deterrent; don’t rob here, you’ll get caught on camera. This is their function on the Tube, on the buses, in corner shops and pubs.

I establish these categories explicitly because I want to consider the evolving role of state surveillance over the last fifteen years in the light of these distinctions. We have seen a huge expansion of publicly, rather than privately, owned CCTV cameras. We have seen the return of the street bobby, the copper on a push bike, Community Policing. We have seen the development, evolution and eventual prime-time prominence of the organisation known as FIT. We’ve also seen the growth of organisations which attempt to track, monitor or control traffic flows on the internet. We have seen massively more frequent use of phone monitoring, we’ve seen undercover agent provocateur operations which offer thousands of pounds to recruit citizen surveillance officers, or what we would have called “secret police informants” during the Cold War, if we’d spotted godless Commies at it.

FIT are a specifically interesting case to follow. They grow in the shadows cast by the Territorial Support Groups, and like most things that grow in the dark they’re knee-deep in shit. Both police groups are, in inception, explicitly class warriors: both were created to suppress increasingly organised expressions of working-class disillusion and rage. I remember the gossip mills talking about a shadowy group of guys with cameras documenting Troublesome Elements from behind black-glazed car windows. What they turned out to actually be was an attempt to curtail nationally organised football violence.

And initially they were an investigative force. They operated covertly. They identified and documented the activities of over a thousand violent criminals. Unfortunately, they also documented and spied on several thousand innocent football supporters. But, the men who’ve been banned from foreign travel and from football stadiums are, overwhelmingly, the right men; the men who organised things like this.

FIT used to hide behind net curtains and this places them distinctly into the camp of investigative surveillance. They wanted to know something; they used surveillance to find out. Unfortunately, it didn’t end there. They soon morphed into something new; FIT surveillance became a highly visible, highly politicised and in-your-face feature of public order policing. This does not mean FIT’s activities came out of the shadows; they still do all kinds of things they hope people won’t notice, but it does mean that the nature of their surveillance changed.

I was taken aside at the point when I asked for the warrant by about five FIT officers. Had a camera pointed in my face and photo taken. Held onto and surrounded and shouted at.

So writes James Lloyd, a Climate Camp legal observer on 2nd April 2009. This is not investigative surveillance; for a start, this guy is in an orange tabard marked Legal Observer, his name and two phone numbers are registered with police command and he is, in fact, carrying a Police Liason identification.

What are they doing? If it’s not investigation, it must be deterrence. The aim is to send a very clear message; you are being watched. We are doing it. We don’t care if you know. You will be watched, your privacy will be invaded, and there is nothing you can do. This is the action of a group who are actively attempting to stop something.

And it’s not football violence any more. In fact, I don’t know if FIT still have that purview or not; once everyone heard about them their utility in stopping organised criminals was compromised. It’s the wavering criminal who may be deterred, not the skinhead with the swastika tattoo who “supports” a football team but turns up for the donnybrook. What they most certainly do, now, is spy on and intimidate political dissenters.

In fact, when you look beyond FIT at public surveillance of political dissent it is almost universally not investigative. It’s not about finding out who disagrees with the government: the government knows that, we’re all shouting about it on the internet, or going to protests with placards. The behaviour of FIT, the police threatening people with non-applicable laws to try and force identification data out of them, the CCTV cameras… There are neon-yellow, private (or rather, corporate) surveillance operatives driving around in caged vans labeled “GrapeVine” (whoever the hell they are) and spying on private citizens “in partnership with the police”.

They are not about finding out, or proving, anything. These multi-billion pound initiatives are about passing on a message to anyone who thinks dissent is permissible. The message is: We are watching you. You have been warned.

Victory for Fitwatchers Everywhere as FIT Hide in Car

2009-07-17T15:51:00.000-07:00

Last weekend, at both the Anti Militarist Gathering and a demo at Heckler and Koch, FIT cops - CO996 Mark Sully and 1818 from South Yorkshire police (name anyone???) were spotted skulking in an unmarked car.

It is lovely to see these cops, who used to be so brazen about their role, hiding away, scared of being confronted and challenged by protesters.

Fitwatch also wonder whether they had the necessary authorisation under RIPA to conduct such covert surveillance. Anyone present at either of these events might want to complain to the IPCC that this surveillance was being carried out, and it is believed the correct authorisation had not been obtained.

Whilst undoubtedly a victory, this is something we need to be aware of. We cannot allow them to lurk in unmarked cars - we must still challenge them and draw attention to their presence.

And, just because we can't see them, doesn't mean their not watching, making notes, and building databases. It is therefore crucial we continue masking up and taking whatever measures we can to protect our anonymity on protests.

Photos copyright - Tash - tash@indymedia.org

FIT at Southend Airport

2009-07-16T08:08:00.001-07:00

It seems that more and more people are objecting to being placed under FIT style surveillance. About time!

The latest case hitting the press concerns Essex police seen photographing a bunch of people attending a meeting about the future of Southend Airport. They snapped local residents and members of campiagn groups on 'crime and disorder' grounds.

Quoted in the Mail, Kiti Theobald, chairman of the Stop Airport Extension Now group, said: 'I was walking out of the main building and there was a policeman with a camera. I asked him if he was taking pictures of me and he said yes.

'I asked him why, but he just said his boss told him to do it. He wouldn’t tell me anything else about it.

Which seems to be about the standard of reply we expect to get from FIT coppers generally, Essex ones in particular.

Met's advice to photographers

2009-07-11T14:31:00.000-07:00

Published Thursday: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Including: "Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are involved in terrorism."

And the wonderfully unambiguous: "It should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use Section 58a to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, as without more, there is no link to terrorism. There is however nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable."

So, it's not technically against the law, but if the police decide it is, then it, er, is.

Plus: 'The Met's attack on photographers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/photography-anti-terrorism-regulations

“Um...specifically...I don’t know” – Assistant Commissioner Chris Allan on FIT data collection.

2009-07-06T18:50:00.001-07:00

“Um...speicifically...I don’t know”. This was Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison’s response to being asked what happens to the data collected by the Forward Intelligence Teams on Panorama’s, “Whatever Happened to People Power?” Chris Allison has worked for the MET for twenty five years, and according to the Met Police’s website, has been “heavily involved” in the “policing of public order events ranging from football matches, small marches all the way to resolution of serious disorder”. If he, with his years of expertise and high ranking, doesn’t know, then who does?

Obviously Chris Allison knows what happens to the data, but he’s not going to admit that the details of thousands of protesters are being entered into a searchable database, and listed as possible extremists on Panorama. It’ll be interesting to see whether Superintendent Hartshorn, inventor of the summer of rage, will be more forthcoming under cross examination at upcoming Fitwatch trials, and whether he will be forced to reveal further information about the extent of data retention on UK protesters.

Allison was also somewhat flexible with the truth when asked about the role of the FIT. His description of a unit dedicated to keeping “people safe” and “engag[ing]” with “the public” seems in contradiction to Jacqui Smith’s comments on this being “harassment style policing.” To anyone who has experienced or witnessed FIT policing, it was either deeply offensive or just plain ludicrous.

It was good to see Allison squirming, unable to truthfully answer the questions about policing and protest, and ultimately ending up looking like a lying idiot. The programme was also good at exposing some of the tactics the police use against protesters, and showing the lengths they are prepared to go in dealing with people doing nothing more than getting involved in a local campaign.

However, whilst good, there was one flaw with the programme- there was a whiff of good protester/bad protester from the beginning. Although not overtly stated, the implication was that it was alright to use these tactics against the real “extremists”. This not only didn’t cover the rather obvious question of what defines domestic extremism and whether this is an acceptable definition – NETCU themselves agree there is no legal definition and basically infer it to mean anyone who engages in direct action – but whether this treatment of protesters is right regardless of their beliefs.

Fitwatch was started from a belief all protesters should be protected and that we have a right to defend ourselves from this kind of policing. It is great programmes such as Panorama are finally bringing these issues to a wider audience, but it is important this good/bad distinction is not made and is always challenged. Harassing, intimidating, assaulting and arbitrarily arresting people because of their beliefs rather than their actions is not acceptable, and people across the political and activist spectrum need to stand together to ensure any changes to public order policing applies across the board and not just to a select few.

Pictures of climate camp cops

2009-07-03T04:45:00.001-07:00

Shown below is PC's Fisher and Stabler, two of the police officers involved in the climate camp arrests of Fitwatchers. Fisher, who is distinctive in having a heavily tattooed arm, is in the front.

Predatory policing

2009-06-28T11:53:00.000-07:00

This is the article that appeared as a Comment is Free peice on the Guardian website

As my arrest and imprisonment demonstrates, the preventative policing model is a licence to harass legitimate protesters
Fit Watch was formed in response to more than 10 years of harassment and intimidation of protesters by the Forward Intelligence Teams (Fit). Employing a range of tactics from blocking police cameras to monitoring their activities, we knew it would make us more unpopular than we already were with the Fit. However, the stifling effect of their presence at protests and meetings meant it was a necessary step.
I first became aware of Fit in 2001. Fit officers were taking photographs outside meetings, and then greeting me by name in crowds of thousands of people. Before long, they were at every meeting, every demonstration, calling me by name, making derogatory comments, and following me long after a protest had finished.
During 2002, they arrested me four times in three months, raided my house, seized my personal diaries and tried very hard, but unsuccessfully, to have me remanded.
None of the charges came to court, and eventually I received compensation. However, I was driven so far over the edge I ended up drinking heavily to the point I broke down and was admitted to hospital, vomiting blood, on a drip and hallucinating cops in the place of paramedics.
It never occurred to me to challenge this policing – even ending up in hospital didn't make me realise we needed a collective response. And my experiences, although extreme, were by no means isolated. Many people had breakdowns, or simply withdrew from political activity because they couldn't deal with the levels of police harassment.
The police have always sought to justify their actions against me, and others like me, on the grounds we are the nasty protesters – the ones they warn about when they spin media stories about hardcore troublemakers arriving at climate camps. This subtext was made crystal clear at our bail hearing after the Kingsnorth incident – the crown prosecutor described us as "violent" and said the "police were anxious" we would go back to the camp, "create disorder" and "put people in fear of mental and physical injury". However, as the video shows, we did nothing other than try to monitor the policing operation.
As the dust settles from the G20, and various bodies compile their reports into public order policing, it is this arbitrary distinction between good and bad protesters that is likely to be drawn. The distinction is subjective, based on dubious assumptions and police "intelligence", details of which are near impossible to access and challenge.
I know I'm not a violent troublemaker. In simplistic terms, I believe a better world is possible, and that real changes – whether it be women winning the vote, the abolition of the poll tax or the fight against environmental destruction – only occur when people stand together, say no and have a direct impact. Refusing to accept the police's parameters for protest is not being a bad protester – it is an essential part of effective dissent.
While the preventative policing model remains – including use of Fit tactics, systematic stop and searches, kettling people for hours without access to food, water or toilets and baton charging anyone who dares leave – there will continue to be civil liberties abuses at protests. Arresting, harassing and imprisoning people because they might commit an offence is not acceptable whatever their political beliefs, and it is essential we stand together to resist this form of policing.

Identity of Police Officers in Guardian Fitwatch Video

2009-06-22T16:55:00.000-07:00

Three Fitwatch activists have lodged a complaint with the IPCC about their arrest and imprisonment at Climate camp last year. The story and video of this arrest was reported in The Guardian and picked up by a variety of news outlets.

However, most of the footage has obscured the details of the officers, but clearer pictures can be seen here.

Whilst we realise these are not FIT cops, given it's a story about Fitwatch, we thought it only fair we should name them - and it should be noted that EK127 Alan Palfrey, who is getting a bit of a reputation for turning a blind eye towards police violence, is seen skulking in the background.

Firstly, the Evidence Gatherers who filmed this footage:

10475 - Last - is the female officer
9038 - Sellan

8871 - Wiltshire
9589 - Sabcar

The officers involved in the arrest were:

PC 1259 - Nicholas Fisher - (I think - perhaps another fitwatcher could confirm - this is the heavily tattooed officer who is seen putting his hands around a fitwatcher's neck, and who is not wearing a number).

PC 5988 - Jessica Lawe - female cop

PC 6303 - Christopher Lawless (no, I'm not making this up)

PC 6509 - Davis

PC 5915 - Flint

As regular readers of the blog will realise, this was not an isolated incident in terms of Fitwatch, protest, or the country as a whole. However, it is great that this coverage has been generated, and we will continue to challenge this policing by whatever means we can.

CO11 review database

2009-06-21T10:24:00.000-07:00

The Met are in the process of weeding data and images of protesters from the CRIMINT database that they are unable to justify retaining, according to the Home Office. In a response to parliamentary questions they state that CO11, the Public Order Branch are conducting a ‘manual review’ of photographs they have taken on demonstrations and political assemblies. This follows the Court of Appeal case of Andrew Wood, when it was found that the Met were not justified in retaining pictures of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade activist.

The criteria the police are using to ‘review’ entries on the database is unclear. Senior officers within CO11 have previously stated that intelligence can be held on people who have no criminal record, and who have done nothing unlawful. An awful lot seems to depend on the subjective judgement of FIT officers, and the estimated ‘threat’ from groups such as environmentalists and anti-militarists, or pro-Tamil or Palestinian demonstrators.

In an effort to find out just what data the police hold on them FITwatchers and others have applied under the Data Protection Act to see the information on file. The police have been slow to respond, and so far very little has come to light. The NUJ announced last week that they are making a formal complaint to the data commissioner about the failure of the public order unit to provide details of the data they hold on journalists.

It’ll be interesting to see how much information is eventually revealed – the police will undoubtedly try and hide behind the ‘national security’ and ‘prevention of crime’ exemptions to the Act. Additionally many protesters might justifiably be wary of making data requests, as it inevitably means providing a name and address and details of demonstrations attended. But potentially this is a useful way of getting a better picture of the scale of the information held, and any readers of this blog who would like more info or support for doing this should e-mail us at defycops@yahoo.co.uk

On the buses

2009-06-05T03:57:00.000-07:00

This photo was sent to us by a demonstrator on the Mayday protests in Brighton. It shows two Sussex police evidence gatherers escaping the attention of the Mayday marchers by filming from the top deck of a bus.
FIT and evidence gatherers at the Brighton demo were given an exceptionally hard time. Evidence gatherers were pushed out of the crowd as it assembled near Brighton pier, and their cameras were the focus of constant attention from that point onwards. Photographers crowded them, demonstrators squirted water at them, FITwatchers blocked them. So presumably, these two took it upon themselves to escape from all that and hide on the top deck of a bus where no-one would notice them.
There is just one problem with that decision – it quite possibly meant that their filming of the march from this point was unlawful.
Their problem is RIPA, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This defines covert surveillance as follows:

9) For the purposes of this section—
(a) surveillance is covert if, and only if, it is carried out in a manner that is calculated to ensure that persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place;

Just like hiding out of sight in a bus with a video camera, then?
This type of surveillance is perfectly lawful if the police have justified it and obtained the appropriate authorisation. It is, apparently, quite an onerous process. According to an ACPO review it takes on average five hours to fill in the forms for an authorisation. Somehow I suspect that these two just didn’t bother to do that.
Normal FIT surveillance escapes all this because it is OVERT rather than COVERT. This means, according to the Met, “officers should clearly identify themselves as police officers and not hide the fact that they are filming”*.
COVERT filming, as defined by RIPA, carried out without authorisation, is of questionable legality. I am sure Sussex police, concerned as they are to prevent breaches of the law, will now conduct a thorough enquiry, discipline those involved and destroy the footage taken. Of course.

*Met police Use of Overt Filming / Photography Policy Statement, taken from Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009]EWCA Civ 414 §13

G20 FIT officer at protest against police violence

2009-05-27T13:17:00.000-07:00

The police officer on the left of this shot is PC Palfrey, a regular FIT officer well known to FITwatch bloggers. He was identified by a number of readers of this blog as being part of the FIT team that was on the scene when Ian Tomlinson was assaulted, just before he died at the G20 protests. It is likely that he, along with his FIT colleagues, issued the instructions that led to the TSG's violent behaviour, and possibly to a man's death.

Given all this, it is more than a little ironic that this same man was on FIT duty at the recent protests in London against police violence. This picture was taken on the United Campaign Against Police Violence rally in London on the 23rd May. Neither PC Palfrey, nor his FIT colleagues, appear particularly concerned by issues of police violence and deaths in custody.

Thanks to Jules for the photo.

C stands for ...

2009-05-24T09:40:00.000-07:00

This is C1738, out at New Scotland Yard for the United Campaign Against Police Violence demonstration. When it was pointed out that he appeared to be missing a letter, he insisted he wasn't. He was unwilling to say which branch C represents. We can all have a good guess what it stands for, though.

If I had a face like yours I'd join the Met Police

2009-05-24T09:37:00.001-07:00

NI90 in Parliament Square yesterday.

Probably too late to warn him about what happens when the wind changes!

Is this the end of Forward Intelligence?

2009-05-21T06:21:00.000-07:00

The Met today lost a key legal case in the Court of Appeal over the retention of photographs taken of protesters by Forward Intelligence Teams.

Andrew Wood, a campaigner for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, took a civil case against the Met in 2005 after he had been followed and photographed by FIT officers. The FIT team harassed him after he attended a shareholders meeting of Reed Elsevier, the company which then hosted the DSEi arms fair in London’s Excel centre.

In the initial hearing at the High Court, lawyers for the Met maintained that they did not retain the photographs for further use. “This is not about some secret national database” they insisted. Wood lost the case.

After that, FITwatch mounted a number of legal defences to obstruction charges, based on the fact that FIT teams collected and collated data onto a central system which breached privacy rights. Initially FIT officers giving evidence denied this. Then back in December, PC Dan Collins blew the lid off the database racket. During the trial of three people using banners to block the cameras of FIT teams, he was unusually and remarkably honest. Yes, he said, they did enter details of individual protesters into a database. Thousands of them.

Liberty, who had taken Wood’s case, then accused the Met of misleading the court. They appealed the decision on Wood to the Court of Appeal.

Todays judgement calls for the police to destroy the photographs taken of Mr Wood, and casts doubt on their ability to continue to collect data on people when there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Presumably, this means their practice of sitting outside meetings taking photographs of those attending will now be recognised as unlawful. It also has implications for the collection of data in any situation where no criminal offences are taking place.

It is certainly good news for the nine FITwatch activists who are awaiting trial for obstructing police cameras, some of whom have been on bail for a over a year. It will make it much more difficult for the police to maintain that they were acting lawfully when taking photographs of a public meeting and a perfectly peaceful protest!

So it this the end of the FIT? I suspect that they will attempt to weasel their way out of this ruling in some way or another. Perhaps they will just go back to pretending that they don’t keep any of the images. Or maybe they will insist they only photograph anarchists and ‘extremists’, who (of course) go around committing offences all the time anyway. Who knows?

But coming on top of everything else – FITwatchers making their life bloody difficult; two of their ‘top boys’ under investigation in connection with the death of Ian Tomlinson; criticism from the NUJ for attacking and harassing working journalists – this must surely hurt.

It’s about time you hung up the FIT jackets, boys, and got yourself a proper job.

Saturday 23 May - Stop Police Violence, Kettle New Scotland Yard!

2009-05-20T06:30:00.000-07:00

Saturday 23 May - assemble 3pm Trafalgar Square

March via Downing Street to New Scotland Yard.

The United Campaign Against Police Violence has called a national demonstration to highlight the issues of police violence and demand justice for those who have died in police custody.

The police tactic of "kettling" demonstrators - essentially detaining protestors and bystanders without charge - will be turned on its head on the protest, when we kettle New Scotland Yard.

At the end of the protest there will be a naming of the dead for those who have died in police custody, led by the families of the bereaved who have yet to receive justice. Over 1000 people have died in police custody in the last 40 years - yet no one has been found responsible.

Protestors will demand the disbanding of the Territorial Support Group, the resignation of "Independent" Police Complaints Commission chair Nick Hardwick, justice for those killed in police custody and for the right to protest.

FIT and EGT at smashEDO Mayday events

2009-05-05T12:01:00.000-07:00

New batch of pics of both FIT and EGT at Brighton now uploaded!

Accessible here

FIT Teams Shut Down in Brighton

2009-05-04T05:47:00.000-07:00

FIT teams have been forced to retreat from the Smasho EDO/ITT demo in Brighton. Due to a large number of participants engaging in Fitwatch tactics, they are not able to get any footage.

People have physically pushed, shoved and kicked them out of the demo. A mobile CCTV van was blocked and forced to drive away. Two FIT officers trying to stop someone from doing graffiti were pushed away.

This shows what can happen when we collectively resist our oppression. We no longer have to be passive victims to this policing - we can fight back and we can shut them down.

Congratulations to all those involved in Brighton and good luck for the rest of the day.

CO11 and ACPO at Brighton

2009-05-01T03:33:00.000-07:00

FITwatch are here publishing details and photographs of public order cops that had on-the-ground responsibility for implementing the cordons and kettles, and the use of batons, pepper spray and dogs against EDO protesters in Brighton last June and October. They are all regular faces, and well known to FITwatch, although we do not yet have names for all of them.

Many of them were seen at the Smash ITT demo in October hitting demonstrators with batons, particularly 2058 and Paul Mather . Steve Discombe appeared to be directing a dog team against protesters on the hill behing EDO, at the time when a working journalist was bitten by a police dog.

Others seemed keen to direct pepper spray at faces that they knew.

The cop that displays the number 1818 was allegedly involved in raiding the houses of people arrested (and later acquitted) at previous demonstrations.

Given the fuss over the G20 policing for Brighton's mayday could be very different from previous events, and these thugs might be told to stay at home. But just in case they do turn up, it's good to be informed about the type of people we are dealing with.

If you have any information about any of these cops - perhaps you have taken a complaint against them, or have statements from them relating to court cases - please let us know.

The Essex globetrotter

2009-04-30T07:36:00.000-07:00

Some of you will recall the Essex FIT officer, 13, who was in London for the Put People First march on 28 March. Not content with tripping to London for that, he's also been seen keeping an eye on a range of unsavoury right-wingers in Newcastle at a St George's day rally, none of whom appear in the pictures. Curiously he was with that other well known travelling cop, 1818, who we covered a couple of years ago.

London - 28/03/09

Then Newcastle for George's Day

1818 - coming soon to a demo near you

Questions to answer

2009-04-30T06:08:00.000-07:00

Outside City Hall today was a man who should have been inside, helping the Met Police Authority with their enquiries. Here seen on the right, PC Alan Palfrey, EK127, who appears to have witnessed the incident immediately preceding Ian Tomlinson's death, was not in the chamber, but rather watching demonstrators outside City Hall, along with the copper formerly known as 'Laughing Boy,' CO5466 Cowlin. He's not laughing now. But then who would, when paired with a man with as dubious a sense of humour as Alan Palfrey.

Brighton Mayday - Continuing the Resistance

2009-04-26T09:30:00.000-07:00

Much publicity (including our own) surrounding the G20 has been based on portraying protesters as victims, instead of celebrating our victories. Both at the G20 and at other demonstrations throughout the last year, people have increasingly been adopting militant tactics and refusing to submit to oppressive policing.

EDO protests in Brighton have been prime examples in this trend. FIT teams have been kept on the run, police lines have been broken, and space has been reclaimed. Protesters have set the terms of their own demonstrations, and despite massive attempts at intimidation, have been extremely successful.

This year, Mayday celebrations will be focused in Brighton with Smash EDO calling for a "mass street party against war and greed." Fitwatch will be supporting this call and are asking for as many people as possible to adopt Fitwatch tactics and shut the evidence gatherers down.

Given the G20 publicity, policing Brighton Mayday will be in the spotlight. The FIT teams and their masters at the Public Order Unit are responsible for the G20 policing, and they are responsible for Ian Tomlinson's death. We must show we will not tolerate these officers on our demonstrations, and we must hold them to account for their actions.

We are not all victims. Some of us are fighting back. Join Fitwatch and continue this resistance.

There will also be a Fitwatch workshop in Brighton at the Anti-Militarist Gathering at the Cowley Club, 10am, 3rd May.

The tactics of containment

2009-04-24T04:25:00.000-07:00

It has been very interesting in the last few days, to read the range of comments posted here about the police justification of policing the G20 protest and the tactics of containment.

It has been particularly interesting to get some views from TSG officers themselves. One, going by the name of MCM comments, “we were doing our job, we were doing what we were told and we were getting on with it and we were doing exactly what we were trained to do. If you don't agree with the training then fine, but don't try and persecute us for doing what we are trained to do.”

Personally speaking, I can’t help but agree that the officers highlighted in the G20 footage were doing nothing out of the ordinary. It may not have been justifiable – as was also said on the comments page, protesters behaving the same way would “be in front of a magistrate within days”. But it certainly wasn’t unusual. For many years now the police have been operating a policy of containment (as opposed to dispersal) of demonstrators, and this is what it looks like. It is close up, and involves kettles and cordons and inevitable pushing and shoving of protesters with hands or shields and the extensive use of batons. As MCM says, “this has been going on for years - especially at football - because we are trained to Police public order situations that way.”

Containment as a tactic was developed by the police as a way of avoiding the sort of full-on confrontation seen at the Poll tax protest in 1990. According to many commentators, including academics and police themselves, the widespread violence was largely caused by police dispersal tactics, such as baton charges and horses being ridden at crowds of people. The criminologist academic Peter Waddington suggested that the police should have contained rather than dispersed the crowd, and the tactic of ‘kettling’ was born.

Containment has been widely criticised, apart from the violence inherent in it, because it involves the lengthy detainment of people who have committed no offence. MCM’s views on this are revealing. “The tactic of containment or kettling DOES work however, by having a significant majority of people who don't want trouble they naturally keep the minority in check, even after many hours of getting bored and pissed off.” I suspect that ‘the significant majority’ may have some understandable objections about being held for hours on end, without water, without food, without toilets, sometimes in the cold or wet, just to ‘keep the minority in check’.

As a tactic containment has surely has reached the end of the line. For years it has been a disaster waiting to happen, and now it has resulted in a death. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I know, the UK police are the only ones in Europe to operate such a strategy. Police elsewhere in Europe adopt more of a stand-off approach, interfering less and using dispersal methods (tear gas, water cannon) from a distance in cases of disorder. Police have criticised this idea as being even more likely to produce injury, but I have no figures on this. But clearly has the significant advantage of allowing people to go home!

Yet European tactics seem unlikely to be adopted here. It runs counter to the UK police’s philosophy of ‘preventative policing’, and I suspect that CO11 and their FIT teams will be particularly loath to let the ‘kettles’ go. They have provided extraordinarily useful opportunities for CO11 and their FIT teams to get photos and personal details of political protesters. In fact, I suspect ‘kettles’ have sometimes been formed for entirely that purpose.

So where will we go from here? I suspect we may see attempts, by police and by press, to make divisions in political protest between the good protesters (law abiding and compliant) and the bad protesters (those who object to having their movements restricted, who defend themselves from police batons, who push at police lines or who may be prepared to damage property in expression of their dissent). The politicians will then seek to give more freedom to the former, whilst putting even more restrictions on the latter.

I fear that the police focus on ‘preventative policing’ of demonstrations will end up being strengthened rather than weakened. This could lead to ‘bad protesters’ being treated increasingly like terrorists, having their movements monitored and being pulled from their beds in ‘anticipation’ of crime or public disorder. Not unlike the action taken against a group in Nottingham last week. Given the ease with which the police can currently go after suspected ‘terrorists’ without apparently even a shred of evidence, that is a worrying thought indeed.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that all the G20 coverage and the awakening of middle England in outrage at police brutality will bring about a greater degree of freedom for all of us. But I'm not holding my breath. Instead, I think it will ultimately be down to us to get a hell of a lot better at protecting ourselves (and others) from G20 style policing.

Your number's up

2009-04-20T15:42:00.003-07:00

This is CO5466 Cowlin, pictured on 2 April at the Royal Exchange with EK127 Alan Palfrey. Curiously, while Cowlin's shoulder number should be CO5466, here he appears to be modelling CO5456.

FIT at heart of the violence

2009-04-15T11:41:00.000-07:00

Seasoned Fitwatchers won't be surprised by the number of times the FIT appear in footage of brutal police violence from 1 April. People who were at the G8 in Scotland in 2005 will remember the numerous examples of FIT officers deciding that gaining intelligence was less fun that having a whack at demonstrators. Over the last four years the FIT have lost none of the appetite for violence, which has given a new meaning to their stated aim of establishing a rapport with protesters.

Footage obtained by the Guardian shows how they were consistently present when the police decided to kick things off. They were consistently present when random people were assaulted. They were consistent, again, in their utter disregard for the legal niceties of what they and their colleagues were up to.

Guardian footage - through this link

This is the true face of the FIT: orchestrating an atmosphere in which the TSG are given free rein to thump people. The FIT played a core role in creating this atmosphere, through their intelligence briefings, through their behaviour on the day, and through the authority of those among their number who are public order tactical advisers. They need disorder to keep themselves in a job, and it certainly doesn't do their part-time members' pay packets any harm.

If the police are targeting 'known troublemakers' they're doing a very good job of concealing it.

None of this, of course, is news to those who have suffered the malign attentions of the FIT in the past. What's most interesting here is the scale to which the Met have lost the plot, where Bob Broadhurst, Ian Thomas, David Hartshorn and their coterie thought they could have a police riot in the City of London and no one would be any the wiser. We're not talking about minor, bit-part players who cooked up a police riot. This is the cream of the public order cadre of the Met, the premier police force in the country - and further afield, if you believe police propaganda.

Today Sir Paul Stephenson announced that the Inspectorate of Constabulary would conduct a review of the public order policing of the G20 protest. This is surely a means by which he hopes to avoid a full-scale public inquiry. But as evidence mounts up of a deliberate and carefully planned police operation - which was guided from the GT control room in Lambeth - having one more police investigation into the police is completely unacceptable. There is no doubt that this was planned and executed from the top, and it is unimaginable that Stephenson was not kept in intimate contact with the events of 1 April.

Where does this leave the FIT? Frankly, less than a year ago they thought they had US on the run, having finally managed to secure a few convictions, in the process of being appealed. Now, they dare not even attend a protest about policing - the memorial march for Ian Tomlinson - with their blue tabards on. The entire public order policing structure of the Met's left looking very fragile. The boot's very much on the other foot.

Former Fit Officer Suspended Over G20 Assault

2009-04-14T16:56:00.000-07:00

Picture from Indymedia of the cop who assaulted a protester without his number.

Picture from Fitwatch archives of him when he was less shy about showing us his number.

Another Picture

As more evidence of police brutality at the G20 emerges, another officer has been suspended, this time a former FIT officer, AB42 when we knew him, and now a sergeant in the TSG.

Yet another video shows FIT officers casually observing their former colleague violently assaulting a protester attending a memorial demonstration.

This level of violence is nothing new, and this is the point we need to keep emphasising. This wasn't a one off example of a few cops getting a bit out of control, it is their normal behaviour. I haven't found these images shocking because I've witnessed and experienced it too many times.

We musn't keep letting the bastards get away it - they must be held to account for their actions by all and any means necessary.

Identity of FIT Officers Implicated in G20 Death

2009-04-10T14:36:00.000-07:00

Identifying the individual FIT officers involved in the incident which led to the death of Ian Tomlinson isn’t easy. We know several FIT officers were present from the blue tabards on their jackets, but telling them apart is another matter – they have helmets hiding their faces, and their numbers are not prominent.

However, due to independent identification from a number of seasoned Fitwatchers, we now believe we can reveal the identity of two of them:

Steve Discombe – CO 2558 – a full time public order officer from New Scotland Yard.

Alan Palfrey – EK 127 – a part time FIT copper from Camden.

Obviously,under the circumstances, there is immense difficulty in correctly identifying these officers. However, from what we know at the moment, it seems likely these two were involved.

It is regrettable that it falls to us to attempt to identify these officers. A truly accountable police force would have expected these officers both to publicly identify themselves, and to give an open and honest account of their actions.

These two FIT officers are well known to FITwatchers, having perpetrated some particularly unpleasant, aggressive and violent policing over the years. They have been involved in climate camp policing over the last two years, and have policed the G8 as well as anti-war protests both in London and beyond.

For those who are not familiar with public order operations, police officers from CO11, like Discombe, have a major role in directing public order strategy both behind the scenes and on the ground. In this case, they may well have been directing the group of TSG officers responsible for the assault on Ian Tomlinson.

Should this be true, the FIT officers named above should share a large chunk of the responsibility for Tomlinson's death. It is easy to blame the foot soldier, but it is the general we really want to see in the dock.

Unfit for purpose

2009-04-10T09:00:00.002-07:00

Much ink's been spilt on the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson. Some of the most pressing questions haven't yet been posed by the mainstream media, let alone answered. The footage aired on C4 News on 8 April clearly shows the officer who struck and pushed Mr Tomlinson subsequently approach a member of the FIT, several of whom are shown in the film. The FIT, a number of whom are public order tactical advisers, are among the most highly trained public order officers in the Met. Questions about Mr Tomlinson's fate must, therefore, involve questions about the FIT.

The FIT are ostensibly there to establish a rapport with demonstrators. Their remit frequently involves assisting senior officers in the handling of public order situations. They provide intelligence briefings which influence the policing of demonstrations. They are meant to identify potential troublemakers. By implication, this means they are also in a position to identify people who pose no risk, and - presumably - to leave them alone. These are the official reasons for the maintenance of the Met's Forward Intelligence Teams.

But none of the FIT shown on videos on the Guardian website or C4 News seem to think there's anything wrong with the vicious assault on Mr Tomlinson. None of them remonstrate with the TSG officer who struck and pushed Mr Tomlinson. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the FIT present colluded in a conspiracy of silence during the week it took the officer who attacked Mr Tomlinson to work up the guts to approach the IPCC.

None of the FIT present seem to have been able to work out that a middle-aged man with his hands in his pockets, a man walking away from the police, was no threat. If a specialist team tasked with identifying troublemakers - according to the police themselves - cannot determine that Mr Tomlinson is not a troublemaker, then they are in trouble. What is the point in a team supposed to tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' protesters when they so clearly can't?

If the FIT are prepared to tolerate and even become complicit in assaults on random members of the public, what part can they play in advising senior officers on conducting public order operations?

The FIT seem to have become core to the Met's policing of demonstrations, important out of all relation to their numbers - or abilities. The intelligence briefings they issued prior to April 1 almost certainly determined the way Bob Broadhurst and David Hartshorn decided to police the event. They therefore bear a great deal of the responsibility for the injuries dealt out by the police and for the death of Ian Tomlinson. Certainly, they did nothing to prevent the City of London becoming essentially a 'free-fire' zone for the police, in which people posing no possible threat to public order or police safety were assaulted in a systematic fashion.

A Metropolitan Police Authority committee is due to discuss the future of public order policing in London in June. Part of this must include the future of the Forward Intelligence Team. Beside the death of Ian Tomlinson, their long-term campaign to deter people from protesting may appear insignificant. But the death of Mr Tomlinson is a logical result of creating and maintaining a team like the FIT, an unaccountable cabal of self-serving officers who manipulate the policing of demonstrations to further their own careers. Many of the more lurid stories published in the run-up to the G20 protests probably emanated from the FIT, the people who claim to gather intelligence on protesters' intentions. Their commanding officer, Superintendent Hartshorn, set the tone with his comments about a 'summer of rage'; there's little doubt that with leadership like that, his subordinates were happy to create a climate in which the TSG and Level 2 officers out in the City on 1 April felt able to assault demonstrators, journalists and passers-by without much fear of any come-back.

The FIT have carved out a niche for themselves whereby they profit from protest, and can orchestrate events to ensure their prophecies of disorder come true, keeping them in a job. Post-Tomlinson, can there be a place for such a unit within the Met?

G20: The End of Peaceful Protest?

2009-04-09T02:43:00.000-07:00

There can no longer be any doubt that the police were responsible for Ian Tomlinson’s death. Video evidence released over the last couple of days show clearly he was the victim of a vicious assault moments before he died.

Undoubtedly, the police will try and spin the story about the one bad copper pumped up by a bad situation. However, this simply isn’t the case. The violence and brutality shown by the police last week was commonplace, with masked up riot cops wading into peaceful climate camp protesters with batons and boots.

Furthermore, the reaction of the other officers reveals how endemic and normalised this level of violence has become within the MET. Not one of the officers present made any effort to restrain their colleague – as I have sometimes seen them do on other occasions – not one checks to see whether he is okay. The FIT officers standing directly in front of Tomlinson carry on their conversation seemingly oblivious to the violence perpetrated in front of them.

The media, which last week showed continual footage of protesters confronting the police, has this week miraculously found their footage of people being attacked by baton wielding riot cops in side streets. However, there has been no attempt to link these two facts, and engage in the argument that the protesters were justified to fight back against this policing. There has been wide spread criticism of the police kettling people for hours without access to food, water or toilet facilities, yet there has been no suggestion that protesters were justified to use force to free themselves from this situation. Instead, media reports still insist these people were there just to cause trouble, without believing in any cause, and were nothing more than violent thugs.

Violent anarchists have been blamed for the policing operation, and it is likely the effects of the violence perpetrated against the police will be used to justify this appalling assault against a man who was walking away from the police with his hands in his pockets. However, anyone who believes the police wouldn’t have used such force against protesters if no one had fought back is naive, as events at the Kingsnorth climate camp last summer proved.

Protest policing has changed. Boundaries have blurred, and there is no distinction in the way the police treat different groups of demonstrators. Unauthorised protest is not tolerated, and is broken up, often with extreme force. People are made to feel like criminals simply for attending a protest, whether it be by FIT’s constant flash photography, arbitrary stop and searches , or by being pushed and beaten. Rightly or wrongly, if the climate camp seriously wanted to keep their space for twenty four hours, they would have needed burning barricades and a large supply of molotovs alongside their cake and bunting.

Everyone who resisted the police, whether violently or not, are brave compassionate people who were prepared to risk a hell of a lot just to have a presence on the streets of London. The people who did fight back showed we can successfully challenge police lines, and it is encouraging to see this new emerging militancy continuing.

Ian Tomlinson was not a demonstrator, but he could have been, and it is a chilling reminder of the risks we take simply by being in the vicinity of a protest. Furthermore, the nature of the police attack on him would not have been any more or less justified had he been a demonstrator.

Greece was recently set on fire when a protester was killed. The police, terrified of civil unrest during the G20, lied in order to repress the collective rage which would have been expressed on the streets. They are hoping by the news being drip fed a week later this anger will be suppressed, but we musn’t let this happen.

Superintendent Hartshorn fabricated the “summer of rage” to scare people away from protests, and to justify massive police repression. Perhaps it’s time he finds out what a summer of rage really looks like.

Justice for Ian Tomlinson - Saturday 11th April, 11am, Bethnal Green police station.

Brighton Mayday - Monday 4th May, 12 noon.

FIT at the G20 protests

2009-04-05T11:09:00.000-07:00

A few familiar faces...

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist this one...

And whilst not precisely FIT, not entirely unrelated...

(Larger versions of all available from the G20 set on Flickr)

FIT in the City

2009-04-04T15:52:00.000-07:00

As was to be expected, the FIT were out in force in the City of London on Wednesday.

Not all of them were happy to be there.

Glenn Williams, ZD57, looking like he's swallowed a lemon while getting a shock.

The rest of the set can be seen here.

Rogues' Gallery

2009-03-30T22:33:00.000-07:00

Pictures from Saturday's march.

Using the little grey cell: FH433

That's handy: SX426

Lawn and order: KD54 and KD111

I've a hunch: U5606 and U2105

The future's bright: MD862 Wesley Pritchard (minus neck brace)

It's good to talk: CO5073

CO5479

Who's that man? RY240, RY124

YE11 and YE88

Follow follow: KD54 and KD111 take a stroll in the Ministry of Defence gardens

Keep 'em peeled: KD54

CW2339, CW3182

HT19, HT915

EK127, Alan Palfrey

Furtive: KD54. Note Stephen Discombe - CO2558 - lurking in background

D39

A rare picture of CO5466, 'Laughing boy', with inspector and CO5029 Graham Wettone

D39, BS420

Chris Mattock, FH433, ZD57 Glenn Williams

RY240, RY124, BS420, D39

CW3055, HT88, and, all the way from Essex, please welcome 13

U3191, with ZD4 Joe Ross. Mind those nails!

Left to right: football fan SX426, CO5494 Ian Skivens, TW107

Billy Nomates: CW3055

I s-pie blue: CO5466 'Laughing boy', CO2558 Stephen Discombe, EK127 Alan Palfrey

Should have gone to Specsavers: HT915

G20 march

2009-03-29T00:12:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, on the G20 march through London, a couple of thousand flyers were given to trade union participants, raising the issue of police surveillance on demonstrations. Yet, given the policing style used on the march (anarchist block excepted) they could be excused for wondering what all the fuss is about.

The trade union delegations were lightly policed with surveillance kept at a discrete distance. Other similarly peaceful and co-operative protests in London have not been so fortunate. Take the marches for Burmese or Tibetan independance for example, large good natured protests that were subject to intense surveillance.

Trade unionists should also take a careful look at the policing of the climate camp last year in Kent, at which police appeared to have a free hand to harass and intimidate protesters and journalists who had done nothing unlawful (see the Guardian). They should also note the careful police surveillance carried out on union members on picket lines during the recent oil refinery dispute.

If all protest was policed with the respect shown to the trade unionists yesterday, there would have been no reason for the Joint Committee on Human Rights (not exactly a militant group!) to condemn last week the way that protest is surveilled and criminalised.

Trade unionists with no direct experience of just how unpleasant, aggressive and violent the policing of protest can be, may find it difficult to understand the more confrontational attitudes expressed in some postings on this blog. What I hope they do understand is that there is no one set of views or opinions attached to FITwatch. This blog is used to document and monitor the activities of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT), but is also a forum for authors to express their individual views and opinions on protest policing. Readers, supporters and other FITwatch authors are free to disagree with what is said.

Support for this initiative extends from the confrontational to the liberal, and people have responded to the issues of surveillance and harassment in many different ways. Alternative approaches, new or traditional, are always welcome.

FITwatch suggestions for dealing with public order policing on G20 protests

2009-03-26T04:47:00.000-07:00

Police Cordons

Cordons are used frequently by police because they are very effective at ‘shutting down’ a protest. They are uncomfortable, unpleasant and deeply frustrating.

The 'controlled area' may take the form of a metal ‘pen’ made of crowd control barriers. Where that isn’t possible, they will circle the crowd and contain it with a human barrier of police officers, if necessary wearing riot gear and using shields. They may hold the demonstration in one place or move it ‘in a controlled fashion’ to where they want it to go.

The police may keep people in a cordon for several hours. They will usually only agree to release people one by one, with each person being photographed and forced to provide a name and address.

Cordons are a huge problem to those who want to demonstrate without being under the complete control of the police, but they are difficult for activists to deal with.

Even so, some tactics have been used to challenge cordons with some success (see below). Where there is more serious disorder the police may try to disperse a crowd instead, using baton charges, shields, horses etc. Which at least has the benefit of getting you out of the cordon….

Don’t be a sheep stuck in a pen!

Prevent the cordon being formed:

Keep together, keep moving. A crowd that stays in the same place for a long time, or which is moving only very slowly is easy to cordon. A crowd that sticks tightly together and which moves quickly is much harder to control.

Keep a look out – it is usually possible to see when the police are putting a cordon in place. If you see this shout to everyone that this is happening, and encourage your group to move out of the area quickly and together.

If you are in a cordon:

Keep moving. A still, quiet, passive crowd is easy for the police to control. Getting people moving, shouting, chanting, and acting together makes it harder for the police to keep the upper hand. People have often broken out of cordons, and even metal pens, by using this tactic.

Stick together. It happens rarely in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe activists have refused to be released one by one, or to provide ID or submit to a search. By sticking together they have often forced the police to release them as a group. This can be a very effective tactic, but it relies on a sense of solidarity rarely seen in the UK! It also takes time, so you'd have to be prepared for a long wait.

If you escape the cordon:

Don’t just give up and go down the pub, especially if the night is still young! It may be possible to regroup and attack the cordon from the outside. Police do not like being outflanked and can occasionally be ‘persuaded’ to pull back and open the cordon. Failing that you can at least make some noise, stretch police resources, or simply get essentials like bottles of water to those being contained.

Snatch Squads

These are teams of TSG (Metropolitan police boot boys) who go into a crowd to make an arrest. They can operate on demos or within cordons. If you see it happen, don’t just stand and watch! Grab hold of the person they are trying to arrest and hold on! Snatch squads cannot operate if there is good crowd resistance to them, and you could save someone from violence and imprisonment.

Police Surveillance

Police use ‘overt’ surveillance by uniformed officers in Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) controlled by CO11, the Metropolitan police public order unit.

They have three key roles:

Gathering evidence They take footage from early in the day so that they can later try to use the film to incriminate people or identify them from their shoes or clothes

Data gathering They gather data on people for their protester database, so that they build up a detailed picture of which activists attend protests repeatedly. They record visual images, ID (often obtained in stop and search), ‘known associates’ and any other personal details thought to be useful

Harassment style policing When ‘known’ (see above) individuals can become subjects of what the Home Secretary described as ‘harassment style policing’. People are followed at close quarter by uniformed officers, who will listen to conversations, phone calls, and generally be intimidating and unpleasant.

Don’t be a victim

Protect your ID Hoods, sunglasses etc are useful ways of not ending up on a database. Face coverings are useful too, but can provoke a violent police response. They have the power to remove and seize face coverings.

Don’t give them your name and address There is no valid reason for the police to demand your name and address for being at a demonstration. Tell them where to go. Don’t carry bank cards or anything else with your name on, they will use this to ID you in a stop and search.

Data gather on them Take their pictures, note their numbers, send them to us at FITwatch. It sounds such a little thing, but they hate it so much.

Block that shot Stop the buggers working. Placards and banners work very well, if you ‘just happen’ to be standing in front of the camera...

Don’t let them harass people Would you normally just stand by and do nothing if you saw someone being stalked and harassed? It’s not easy to challenge the FIT when they are tailing an activist, but anything you can do to make their job more difficult is bound to be appreciated.

Covert surveillance

Police also use plain clothes police on demonstrations. Beware the person who is without a group of friends, who may be trying to stop people taking action, trying to control the crowd, or who is loudly criticising confrontational tactics. Also keep an eye on who is standing behind you when you are planning or discussing action of your own…

Discuss

We need more discussion about handling public order policing. Please feel free to post your views, ideas etc on the Fitwatch blog.

2009-03-21T08:15:00.000-07:00

You may remember we posted this picture last May, where these two were seen outside City Hall. At the time we didn't have numbers for them. Information reaches us that the gentleman on the left is YR69:

Back on the streets

2009-03-21T08:02:00.000-07:00

It's been some time since we last had a picture of CO2558, Stephen Discombe. However, just when we were beginning to think he'd been put out to pasture, he came out of the woodwork at a demonstration today against the Army recruitment office in Dalston, Hackney. Accompanied by ZD4, one Joe Ross, and Neil Williams, they prowled around the (predominantly SWP) demonstration, finding a surprising number of pictures to take.

Focus on Tower Hamlets

2009-03-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

In the first of an occasional series, here are a number of pictures and numbers we've received of plainclothes and FIT officers from Tower Hamlets. Other boroughs will receive attention in the near future.

Sgt HT19. Trafalgar Square, Gaza demo, 17 January 2009

HT207, on left. Trafalgar Square, Gaza demo, 17 January 2009

Here's three dubious characters:

HT940, HT668, HT276, Bethnal Green Road, December 2008

Here these three were involved in filming Whitechapel Anarchists ostensibly under an operation to curb youth crime and disorder.

HT940 opposite Israeli Embassy, 10 January 2009

HT668 outside National Gallery, Gaza demo, 17 January 2009

It is perhaps no coincidence that HT668, HT940, HT19 and HT201 were among the FIT on these Gaza demonstrations, given the 'robust' policing which followed in and around Whitechapel where Asian men were subjected to more than usual oppressive police behaviour following the Israeli slaughter in Gaza and the resultant demonstrations.

More recently, three Tower Hamlets plainclothes officers, and the ubiquitous HT668, were seen outside the Rampart venue off Commercial Road near Whitechapel last Thursday when the owner's agents attempted to evict the squatted building. The plainclothes officers somewhat undermined their disguise by donning elements of police uniform.

HT656

HT866

The blond cop facing camera decided merely to don the stab-proof vest, maintaining his anonymity for the time being.

Fitwatching Goes Mainstream

2009-03-16T11:21:00.000-07:00

It has been fantastic to see the mainstream coverage being given to protesting policing and surveillance with the protester database story and the report into the policing of the Climate Camp making front page news of The Guardian, as well as shocking footage showing the attitude of evidence gatherers towards journalists. This coverage has been extended in the Comment is Free section with various articles, including one by Fitwatch activists.

Since these revelations, Allyn Thomas, Assistant Chief Constable for Kent police has apologised to journalists, and the climate camp report has been referred by Kent police to the IPCC for further investigation. The fitwatchers arrested and remanded at Climate camp are now looking forward to their apology after their charges were recently dropped.

Meanwhile, Superintendent Hartshorn, head of the Public Order Unit, has been busy creating his very own "summer of rage." Whist people arising from their apathy and creating change through confronting corporations and state is a beautiful image, this prediction has arisen from the manipulative mind of a senior police officer rather than political propaganda.

Undoubtedly, Hartshorn will try to use this fantasty to justify a summer of repression against activists. However, public order policing is coming under attack from all angles - and any attempts at crushing dissent will be held accountable.

Watching the FIT at the G20

2009-03-10T07:41:00.001-07:00

Recent articles in the Guardian have brought what we've been saying about the FIT for some time to a wider audience. With demonstrations in London against the G20 planned for the end of March and start of April, many thousands of people will have the chance to see the FIT in action for themselves. The FIT will certainly be out in force for the week of events, kicking off with TUC march on 28 March, then the convergence on the City of London on 1 April and the G20 Meltdown events around the ExCel Centre on 2 April.

We're in a stronger position now than ever. The media coverage, and the comments posted on websites, shows that the police antipathy to demonstrators is no longer something to which a few people object. Rather, building on the work we've been doing for several years we have an opportunity to really make a mark at the end of the month, when a severe blow can be struck against the FIT. The demonstrations against the vile Israeli onslaught on Gaza show that the FIT haven't as tight a grip as once they did. To keep up the momentum and to increase the pressure, we urge you to participate in fitwatching activities. This can be as confrontational as you like, from noting their numbers and taking their pictures - still legal despite reports to the contrary - to getting in the way of their cameras and preventing them taking your photograph, or the photographs of others around you.

Point out the FIT to people around you and tell them what the FIT are up to - the FIT thrive on hiding among their colleagues and hate being thrust into the limelight.

To make the most of this opportunity, we need your help. Come along on March 28, on April 1 and April 2 - and, don't forget, your pictures of the FIT could win you a prize. For full details see the website.

Welcome to Ulster-On-Thames

2009-02-19T08:27:00.000-08:00

Applied to the whole of the UK by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the offence of eliciting 'terrorist information' about security forces and the equally controversial (but not yet in force) power to seize anything for examination were previously restricted to Northern Ireland, where they expired on 31st August last year - see Terrorism Act 2000 Sections 88 & 103 for the predecessors of Sections 1 and 58A, respectively.

They'd already been through various revisions before that, with the power to examine documents first appeared as Section 22 of Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, a relative newcomer compared to the elicit offence, which is rooted in Regulation 10 of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922:

No person shall, without lawful authority, collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit, any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any police force, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct, of any operations by any such force, or any information of such a nature as is calculated to be or might be directly or indirectly useful to persons hostile or opposed to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and if any person contravenes the provisions of this regulation, or without lawful authority or excuse has in his possession any document containing any such information as aforesaid, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.

Regulation 12 also seems familiar:

If any person, without lawful authority or excuse, uses or has in his possession or under his control any cipher, code, or other means adapted for secretly communicating information which may be prejudicial to the preservation of peace or the maintenance of order he shall be guity of an offence against these regulations, unless he proves that the cipher, code, or other means of secret communication is intended and used solely for commercial or other legitimate purposes. Any person who has in his possession or under his control any cipher, code, or other means of secret communication shall, if required by the civil authority, or any person authorised by him, or by any police constable, supply the key or other means for deciphering it, and if he fails to do so shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.

Still, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, it's not like any police officer would ever just make up a reason to seize 'evidence', would they?

And perhaps the Met were on to something with those posters after all, some photographers do seem odd:

Best keep an eye on those ones. There is a war on, you know!

That nasty little Section 76

2009-02-18T06:37:00.000-08:00

Lot of concerns how this amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 that came into force Monday will affect photographers in general, and fitwatchers specifically.

Almost certainly at some stage it will do cos the cops have this devious little habit of misusing "Anti-Terrorism" legislation against legitimate protesters, activists and the like.

As my own contribution to all the voices raised in opposition I felt the need, like a lot of other photographers, to post something about it on Monday.
But I inadvertently ended up using a slightly different approach and tried to see it in the context of a broader take on things.

Called the piece "Britain 2009" and for anyone that's interested its currently at www.tiltingatwindmills.org.uk

Here's a taster...

"Ask the ordinary "man in the street" what role he believes the police play in society and likely as not he'll answer something along the lines of "maintaining law and order".

Put to him the notion that this country's well along the path to becoming a police state and likely as not he'll laugh at the suggestion...

Well, obviously we don't move from being a relatively free and unrestricted society into a regime of repressive controls overnight. Its a process of transition, and a gradual one at that.
So where would we be likely to observe this process occurring first? Most likely over the "freedom to express or communicate political or other views".
Why? Because it seems to me that would be the most obvious and necessary first step in the development of a politically repressive regime."

Be warned though, its a bit long!

VK547 Ryan Hall

2009-02-16T15:24:00.000-08:00

Well, we just couldn't let today finish without introducing you to another of these lovely officers.

Welcome to Fitwatch, Ryan

New Fitwatch Spotter Card

2009-02-15T18:19:00.000-08:00

To mark the enactment of the amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorist Act 2000 making it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about police officers, Fitwatch have produced a new spotter card.

The above people are dangerous troublemakers. They are extremists who will stop at nothing to stifle protest and dissent in this country. If you see these people take appropriate cautionary measures, such as masking up, and take action to stop them repressing your right to protest.

If you have any information on any of the above suspects (or any other extremists we might be interested in monitoring), please email defycops@yahoo.co.uk

Introducing Fitwatch's new 'member', David Lepper MP

2009-02-13T03:43:00.000-08:00

An MP has accused Sussex Police of deliberately intimidating patrons of a social club. In a surprise intervention David Lepper, Labour MP for Brighton Pavilion, said the police’s decision to photograph people entering and exiting the Cowley Club in London Road for a meeting about the environment last week appeared designed to scare activists rather than prevent crime.

“It looks more like an attempt to intimidate people going in and out of the Cowley Club rather than genuine surveillance. To have such a large number of uniformed officers with a camera with a telephoto lens seems like it’s meant to deter people from going in there. I accept that police need to gather information but this is a ham-fisted way of doing it.”

from Brighton's Argus newspaper.

SX32 and a new but familiar photographer

2009-02-13T03:23:00.000-08:00

Here's Dave again:

And again with Neal 'Weasel' Williams, but who's that sourpuss in the middle?

A closer look, again with Neal:

Picture him in uniform, he might look like this:

And again with XB92 Guy Rooney:

Say cheese!

SX32 - David Casson

2009-02-11T16:09:00.000-08:00

Here at Fitwatch, we always like to be able to put a name to a face, so it is with great pleasure we welcome SX32 Sergeant David Casson to the blog.

Unfortunately, as can be seen from these pictures, he is a bit camera shy. We therefore challenge any amateur photographers (or professional ones), to get as many pictures as possible of our new friend, and send them to us - defycops@yahoo.co.uk

Media Event: “I’m a Photographer … not a Terrorist”

2009-02-09T06:05:00.000-08:00

Hosted by the National Union of Journalists and supported by the British Journal of Photography and the British Press Photographers’ Association.

New Scotland Yard, Broadway, Westminster, London SW1H, UK. (Map)

Monday 16 February 2009.

11am.

Fitwatch urge all supporters to mark the coming into force of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, by joining the NUJ and others at New Scotland Yard this coming Monday.

For those who may have missed all the fuss, this Act will make it a criminal offence to 'elicit' or publish information about police officers that is 'of a type' that can be used by terrorists. Already the police are gearing up for this, and are practising statements like 'you can't take pictures of us!'

Fitwatchers of course will continue to photograph coppers, as long as they continue to photograph us. Fairs fair, eh?

See below for further ideas to thwart the Act...

Announcing the FITWATCH competition...

2009-02-09T05:27:00.000-08:00

“Policewatch”

Following the call-out for direct action against the new Counter-Terrorism Act (see below), Fitwatch is delighted to announce the Policewatch competition, for the finest pictures of the British police.

An amazing prize of the sensational boardgame "War on Terror” http://waronterrortheboardgame.com/ will be awarded for each of three different categories:

Scary – for the most shocking bit of police abuse recorded. Dixon of Dock Green it ain't!
Funny – for the most hilarious classic copper moment. “Now move along, you've had your fun....”
Effective – for the pictures which proved a case against the police or had most success in defending civil liberties (please tell us what it did).- yes, sometimes we can actually say to coppers “you're nicked”!

You can enter still images or video footage. Just post them on flickr (preferred for stills), blip.tv (preferred for video), youtube or anywhere else (please put the tags “visionontv” and “fitwatch”) – then send us a link.

We welcome images from anywhere in the world, but only the best of the British constabulary can win a prize.

Vision on recommend giving your pictures a creative commons license http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ so they can be distibuted as widely as possible.
The creative commons license they advise choosing is “Non-Commercial Share Alike” – which allows people to use your footage for anything non-commercial, and as long as they release it under the same license.

All videos and stills will be shown on visionOntv's Policewatch series http://visionon.tv , hosted by Nick Ross (we made that last bit up – well, we could always ask him...). Stills may be edited into animated packages for television viewers.

Please email info@visionontv.net for further info on the Policewatch series.

Closing date for entries: March 9th 2009
Winners declared: March 16th 2009 – the one-month anniversary of the new legislation

Fighting the Fit and Winning...

2009-02-08T12:27:00.000-08:00

When we first discussed the idea of Fitwatch, I didn't think we'd receive the support or achieve the successes we have. For so many years, FIT had acted with impunity. They had become cocky, complacent, contemptuous of the law. However, whilst their contempt for the law sill remains, they are far from cocky.

A friend of mine wrote to me recently, telling me how much better things were for them now as the FIT were too busy “being harassed to bother harassing” them, and how “it should be acknowledged about how much better it is now than it was two years ago before anyone started challenging them.”

This is important, because during this rightly focused campaign on the photographers and their databases,it is easy to forget how bad things had become. We were passive to their presence outside all our meetings - our resistance to this intrusion amounting only to occasionally giving them the finger and masking up. On demonstrations, they had the impunity to follow us into large crowds., their photographers freely flashing. I remember one anti war march where they followed me so aggressively, my friend had difficulty walking with me. I'd like to see them try that now...

Possibly , the mistake the FIT made was to become complacent. Their rush to include everyone - from grannies outside arms factories to journalists- in their wide angled lens of extremism, has ultimately led to this backlash against them.

There are several events coming up over the next few months – from SHAC City Shakedown on 27th February, to G20 protests, and Brighton Mayday. Act in solidarity with Ftiwatchers everywhere, and let's put the final nail in the coffin of harassment policing.

URGENT - Fitwatchers Needed at Winter Moot

2009-02-06T16:11:00.000-08:00

It has been reported that there are FIT outside the Earth First Winter Moot (Cowley Club, London Road, Brighton), taking photos of everyone going in and out.

This is a plea for anyone who's ever thought about doing some fitwatching to go to Brighton and resist this intimidation and intrusion. We have had a number of successes against the bastards recently, but we have to show we will not tolerate their presence outside our meetings and gatherings.

16th February: Mass Resistance to Taking Photographs of Police Officers Becoming a Terrorist Offence

2009-02-04T17:14:00.000-08:00

The new Counter Terrorism Act will come into force on 16th February. It contains an amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This amendment will make it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about any police constable "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Furthermore, Schedule 7 of the Bill applies this amendment to internet service providers and web hosting services. This means they will have a legal duty to remove all sites perceived to fall under this offence, and has provisions for use at home and abroad.

It is unclear what information will be classed as “useful” to terrorists, but due to this ambiguous wording, the Bill has implications for bloggers, journalists, photographers, activists and anyone who values freedom of speech.

This is a call from Fitwatch for a mass publishing of information on police officers on 16th February. Show we won't be intimidated, or called terrorists for resisting or monitoring repressive policing.

Fitwatch are one of the groups who could be targeted by this new legislation. Fitwatch, started two years ago by activists, resists and opposes the use of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) on demonstrations. FIT are police officers who photograph, follow, and generally intimidate protesters. They bring, in the words of Jacqui Smith, “harassment style policing” to protests.

As part of this opposition, we run a blog – http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/ – where we share information about these officers. We feel this blog could be under threat from this new legislation.

Whilst it is obvious from our blog that we do not like these officers, we are not terrorists.

Neither are:

* people filming, and uploading to Youtube, footage of police officers acting illegally.
* bloggers writing about being randomly stopped and searched.
* journalists publishing details of corrupt or racist cops.
* photographers publishing photographs of police on protests.

The list goes on, but all are under threat.

This legislation not only attempts to stifle our ability to hold the police force to account for their actions, but also attacks the principles of open publishing on the internet. It must be resisted.

Join the mass action and oppose this ludicrous law.

This action can be taken by anyone, anywhere:

* Get hold of a piece of information about a police officer, or a photo or video. If you are stuck, feel free to use anything from our blog!
* Publish this on Flickr, Youtube, your blog, website, myspace/facebook, whereever you want.
* Send us a link, and we'll publish a list on our blog.
* Please circulate and publish this call as widely as possible, and join this act of cyber resistance.

ps – this bill also applies to intelligence officers. If anyone does have any photographs or information on MI5 officers they wish to publish, we would not seek to discourage them in any way, shape or form, but please do send us a link!!!

Other ways to get involved see:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=838048
http://www.pledgebank.com/s76photo

FIT teams shut down on Gaza demo

2009-01-29T08:07:00.000-08:00

Forward Intelligence Teams on the Gaza march on Saturday faced their toughest opposition to date, as people from the march enthusiastically joined Fitwatch activists in blocking police cameras.

As the FIT tried to film the march, they were soon challenged by Fitwatch activists. As the marchers saw what was happening more and more of them came over to support, and before long two FIT coppers and their photographer ended up stranded helplessly on a wall, surrounded by a sea of placards all being held at camera height. They were completely unable to operate, and when they missed getting footage of a group of Asian lads they were after, the anger showed. When, at the head of the march, another FIT team were frustrated by Fitwatchers, the police lost patience. They stopped what had been a very quiet, orderly demo, brought in the TSG, and sent snatch squads in for known Fitwatch activists, sparking a whole load of fuss and even more arrests. See http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TBn3H1_BcXM

Considering that we (along with lots of others) had utterly shut down their data gathering operation, it is no wonder that they were not too happy. I suspect what scared them most was the amount of people who readily joined in, and who made the action so effective. I have to admit, this is the first time I have seen two FIT camera teams completely shut down, and it shows what this tactic is really capable of doing. There has been an astounding culture shift against these bastards, and Saturdays events show that getting them off our streets is now a realistic prospect.

In the circumstances we should have expected a hard time, and we got it. Two of the more prominent Fitwatch bloggers were accused of 'instigating' Fitwatch, and encouraging others to 'harass' police officers, of being troublemakers who cared little about the causes we protested at, of protecting violent offenders and perverting the course of justice. We were charged with obstruct police and assault / s4 charges arising from our arrest, and were refused bail. We were held in a police cells from 5pm Saturday night until 8am Monday morning, when we were taken to court.

Everyone else arrested on Saturday was released, even those arrested for violent disorder. They kept West End Central custody unit open all weekend just for the two of us, at massive public expense, and with a great deal of aggression and hostility. One of us had her hand seriously injured as police and Serco guards repeatedly slammed it in the door of the prisoner van taking us to court.

CO11 detectives spent the whole of Monday with the prosecution, arguing fiercely in court for us to be remanded. It was touch and go, and we were lucky to have good barristers to fight our corner. Narrowly – very narrowly – we escaped being sent to Holloway, for the time being, at least.

It is a continuing conundrum in political activity – being effective at challenging the state inevitably brings repression. And further repression is something we now definitely expect.

But Fitwatch is a tactic that has been taken up by hundreds of people up and down the country. It was fantastic to see so many people prepared to block cameras on the Gaza march, fed up with the intrusion of the police into their privacy, and the harassment by FIT of anyone who dared to look militant, Muslim and young. Fitwatch is much bigger than the handful of people who run the blog. It has been taken up by people of varying political views, on diverse campaigns, and in all kinds of political action. It is an idea let loose, a genie that has been let out of the bottle, and there is no form of repression that can put it back again.

This article ends with a plea to everyone who has ever thought of actively engaging in Fitwatch tactics to put their thoughts into action. There is a very real opportunity over the months ahead to get the FIT off our demonstrations, away from our meetings and off our streets.

Sergeant's Exam part 48: Firebombing

2009-01-22T07:51:00.000-08:00

Spot the odd one out.

Help Defend the Militancy - Fitwatch call for Gaza demo

2009-01-20T15:35:00.000-08:00

24th January, 2pm, BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London.

As the militancy on the UK streets increases, so will the police repression. We must help defend this current wave of resistance. Given Israel's alleged ceasefire, it is likely the protests will be smaller, but the anger will not, and should not, go away.

Whatever the size of the protest, there will be many FIT teams about. Block their shots from the beginning and prevent them collating any information or evidence. Say no to being entered into a database just for attending a protest.

This call from Fitwatch is issued in solidarity with the people who have been confronting the police at the Israeli Embassy, attacking Starbucks, and smashing the EDO weapons factory in Brighton.

These courageous acts have sent a clear message of solidarity to the people of Gaza - a message that people care more about the destruction than they do the personal consequences. They show people will not be constricted in their anger, and will cause damage to the companies who contribute to, and profit from, Israeli slaughter.

Resistance is once again alive and kicking in the UK. Join Fitwatch and help keep it this way.

A few Fitwatch tips for staying safe in public order situations
(this is by no means a comprehensive guide)

1.Mask up from the beginning of the demo.
2.Don't bring identification, diaries etc., to the protest.
3.If you are stopped and searched, you do not have to give any details. If you are not driving a vehicle, the only times the police have the power to arrest you for not giving details are under Section 50 of the Anti Social Behavior Act or if they want to summons you for an offence/issue a fixed penalty notice.
4.Consider buying a cheap pay-as-you-go phone for demos to prevent the cops seizing your phone and going through your contact lists, text messages etc.
5.Buddy up. Have one or two people who you know are watching your back.
6.Take water and high energy foods with you.
7.Remember there is no such thing as a friendly chat with a cop.
8.Watch police movements and formations. Look out for pens – and if you've done something, take the opportunity to leave while you still can.
9.Watch for FIT teams. If one arrives at a situation, block their shots and let people know.
10.After the event – dispose of any distinctive clothing, especially rucksacks and shoes. Depending on the severity of the situation, it may be advisable to get rid of all clothing, mobile phone etc. Do not keep any souvenirs. Even if the police break your door down, it is possible you will get off. You lose this possibility if you have a police shield on your wall.
11.If you are arrested make no comment other than to give your name and a verifiable address. If your solicitor tries to advise you otherwise, tell them you want them to instruct you to give a no comment interview.

500 pigs, 20 horses, 16 dogs, 2 starbucks

2009-01-18T07:56:00.000-08:00

Following Israel's announcement that they'd killed enough Palestinians to be going on with, London's lamest decided to celebrate the military success by going on a rampage through the West End, terrifying the decent people going about their normal business, with helmetted hordes and triplets of SWAT-style vans speeding in every direction chasing shadows and shebab.

Yesterday, there was a Palestine Solidarity rally in Trafalgar Square from 2pm, and an obvious possibility that people would afterwards return to the Israeli Green Zone in Kensington to demonstrate their opposition to Israel's humanitarian efforts, which this week included using white phosphorus shells for the strangely frowned upon purpose of burning down UNRWA food and medicine warehouses.

Clearly, such ill-tempered tetchyness from the demonstrators could not be facilitated.

The Met said an appropriate policing response had been prepared or as one BTP PSU Sergeant remarked "You can see why the Met would go a bit overboard after fucking up two weeks in a row."

What the Met spokesman meant was that any march from Trafalgar Square to the embassy had been banned, in accordance with the well-worn provisions of the Ways and Means Act 1414. The whole area around Trafalgar Square was swollen with van upon van (60+) of bored PSUs & TSG, dog handlers from three forces, horse lorries and of course, surveillance units in 4x4s. On Suffolk Street long and short shields hung in rows on railings, such was the eagerness to facilitate lawful protest.

By 4pm there were approx four to five thousand * people in the square, when the speeches drew to an end. As Tony Benn was being put back in his box, streaks of fluorescent yellow stained the surrounding streets, determined to prevent any serious disruption to the career of Bob Broadhurst.

A section of the crowd exited the square by the South West corner and headed for Pall Mall, where they found themselves confronted by a formidable number of cops who surrounded them in the now traditional fashion, doubtless "for their own safety".

But it seemed they had overcommitted as other sections of the crowd moved to block Charing Cross Road and Duncannon Street largely unhindered, then thought better of it and headed for Soho and Oxford Street (still aiming to reach the embassy) with police struggling to follow due to the traffic disruption they had themselves caused by blocking the Haymarket / Pall Mall junction.

One group of around 200 protesters jogged down Shaftesbury Avenue, pausing to smash the windows of a Starbucks by Wardour Street, and the windows of another Starbucks on Piccadilly before finally being cut off at Green Park, only metres from a third round of glass lattes.

Meanwhile at the embassy itself there was relative calm, with a shaky ceasefire mostly holding behind the sandbags, but despite this the police still felt the necessity to round everyone up and force them on to trains perhaps as collective punishment for overdoing the holocaust references.

This week, as Gaza clears its rubble and counts its dead, and the IDF decides how far to pull back, how much to loosen the noose, it's unlikely the rage will go away, next Saturday will probably be one to watch.

* The Met's official estimate was 3,500 - but we all know they're no better at counting crowds than Geoff Jackson is at counting his units.

P.S. The FIT keep coming out with comments to anarchos on these demos like "why would you care about Gaza", "it's not your lot involved, why are you here", which shows once again how utterly pisspoor their 'intelligence' is, in every sense. We're completely impartial, wherever there's a thug in uniform getting his kicks by giving out kicks, whether he's a jumped-up security guard or a tooled-up Zionist, that's our lot on the other end of it. Never forget, we do all of this because we give a fuck.

We will not be pushed around - a Fitwatch response to criticism of militant protest

2009-01-14T05:50:00.000-08:00

This post started as a response to a comment on this thread. Some of it may be stuff we have said in the past, and it is a personal response.

Firstly, let's get one thing straight. Forward Intelligence Cops are not bastions of law and order, trying to keep the peace in difficult circumstances. They are nasty, insidious, vicious and smug. I may be generalising, but I've met a lot of them over the years, and not one has failed to meet these criteria. I think they may even get training in the most patronising way to say a person's name. They are part of what Jacqui Smith described last year as “harassment style policing” - and this is an accurate picture of what they have been doing to activists for years.

However, whilst this is personal and nasty, it only happens to a handful of people. The bigger picture is even more concerning, especially their recent admissions of holding and building databases of people who attend protests, and their proactive targeting of journalists.

FIT are interested in everyone who attends a demonstration, regardless of whether they are wearing any face coverings. Footage we have from their cameras show equal amounts of attention being paid to people who are not wearing masks. A person should not end up on a database simply for attending a demonstration, and we must resist this.

Obviously, masks are extremely useful if you are planning to do anything illegal – even if they get you on camera, if you make no admissions, it is hard for them to prove identity. However, even if you don't plan to do anything, you never know, you may feel differently when you've just witnessed your friend being beaten with a big stick. I read the following about the Gaza demo on this cop's blog earlier - replace bottles etc., with batons, shields, etc., and I couldn't agree more.

“If someone is going to attack me or my colleagues then I'll fight back, no matter what side they are on. There is no difference between a bottle, scaffolding clip, battery or brick whether it's thrown by someone who is pro/anti anything, it still fucking hurts and still does damage to property and people".

This is a normal reaction. However, when it comes to protest, we are supposed to adopt some weird liberal pacifist bullshit that implies we are not allowed to defend ourselves because our attackers are wearing a uniform. This victim mentality ensures we will always be the abused .It's fine for a cop to say he'll fight for his colleagues on his blog, but I'm an extremist for advocating the same on this blog.

The same copper bleats about how the liberal press have distorted the facts – how the demonstrators started the confrontation, and the police were forced to react. I wasn't at the demonstration so I can't comment, but if previous demonstrations were anything to go on, then it would have been a, quite rightly, confrontational crowd.

However, there are other not so obvious elements to starting confrontation. One of the main reasons for confrontation is space. At the embassy, the pens for protesters were very small for the numbers (this was certainly the case the week before, and would have been worse last week). Forcing a large number of angry people into a confined space is never a good idea, and it should come as no surprise when those imprisoned break down the barriers and throw them back at their captors.

Protest is very tightly controlled in this country. You can protest, but only if you do what your told. If you don't believe me, try leafleting outside your local fur shop, and see what happens. Cops have forgotten the limits of their powers and “don't care about the law” as dear Bob Churchman put it last week. However, this is not always obvious to people who only see or attend major demonstrations. It is the people who attend the small demos who are photographed and harassed, assaulted and arrested, often for doing nothing more than handing out a few leaflets.

Policing of protest has changed in the last ten years. Ten years ago, it was very clear which protests were likely to lead to arrest. Now, it is much harder, and the most innocuous protest can be met with heavy handed policing and a trip to the cells. In fact, ask around, and it's not just protest. The majority of people who have dealings with the police have found them disagreeable in some way, even if it's been reporting crime.

However, this strategy is backfiring, and people are starting to get angry. Crowds are beginning to reclaim space and set the agenda for protests. Events such as the Smash Edo and Bush demos have started to show we will no longer tolerate oppressive policing, and the militancy at the Palestinian demonstrations has taken this further. Dissent needs an element of danger before it is threatening enough to change anything, After never ending years of shuffling around Whitehall and not changing anything, people are beginning to fight back.

Will this militancy change anything? Obviously, it didn't force Israel out of Gaza. I'm not naive enough to believe there is anything we can do on street level in London which can do this. However, as a message of opposition and solidarity it was powerful – far more powerful than any of the protests against the Iraq war. If people had rioted after every Iraq demo, it is likely Blair would not have backed the war.

It is very easy to see violence at protests as perpetrated by “known troublemakers”, the “violent minority” or “rent-a-mob”. However this is a patronising oversimplification and is a very convenient way of dismissing caring, passionate people, especially as notoriously these people do not have a voice for fear of repercussions.

Political policing in this country is forcing people into militancy. Large protests have been ignored and smaller protests have been persecuted. Fitwatch is a small but important part of this resistance. It is part of the same response, the same refusal to be constantly pushed around.

2009 could be an interesting year...

FIT policing at the Gaza demo

2009-01-09T10:04:00.000-08:00

The Gaza demonstration last Saturday (3rd Jan) was justifiably passionate, angry and determined, and there were many more there than the 12,000 that the police claimed.

FIT coppers looked edgy from the start, focussing special attention on anyone who looked young Muslim and militant. But with such huge numbers of people, many wearing Arab scarves around their faces, it could hardly have been an easy day out for the FIT photographers.

Public order cops were aggressive from the start too. The one pictured above posed delightfully for a shot, and even introduced himself - CO 5484 Churchman from CO11 (his friends call him Bob). But then he appeared to have a sudden change of heart. Aggressively he grabbed hold of my camera phone and tried to pull it out of my hands. ‘You are going to delete that’ he shouted in my face. ‘You can’t photograph us’. After a brief stand-off in which I refused to let go of my camera, he gave up and turned his attention to bullying someone else.

He and his CO11 colleagues were clearly in a similar frame of mind when they tried to block in the march to the Israeli embassy at Hyde Park Corner underpass. Eyewitness accounts have emerged that police baton charged protesters on a march that had been, until then, entirely peaceful.

It seemed inevitable that there would be confrontation outside the Israeli Embassy, and so there was. Edgy and wound-up TSG sought to protect a small bit of Israel in London, while the Israeli military was pounding Gaza with rockets and artillery. The tightly penned in crowd eventually broke throught the crowd control barrier, with bits of it being returned to the police much faster than they may have wanted. FIT evidence gatherers found a roof balcony from which to film and photograph unhindered the angry crowd below, and powerful police and helicopter floodlights lit up the scene. Yet most of the more militant protaganists had covered their faces well with scarves, and had done so from early in the demo. I suspect that all in all, the FIT did not have such a good day.

eyewitness accounts from last Saturday's protest

2009-01-09T09:36:00.000-08:00

Not my account, but one I came across on indymedia portraying the FIT team as being cool, calm, collected and in control. No, not really. The picture was entitled, 'FIT run for their cowardly lives'.

"I was surprised and like everyone, greatly cheered by the tannoy announcement urging everyone to march onto the Israeli embassy after the speeches. I'd love to know if the police were actually expecting this announcement or not as this is where they seemed underprepared for the numbers of protesters on the streets. Thousands of mostly Muslim youth were at this time trying to run fast along Pall Mall and only a few dozen cops were ahead and desperately trying to form a line across the street to slow and hold them up. A few of the youth just weren't prepared to tolerate this and started lobbing traffic cones and placards at the flimsy line and the cops really started losing it at this stage by lashing out and snatch arresting people. A wonderfully cheering sight was to see all the FIT team looking really scared and running totally paniced away from the crowd!"
Original at:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/417165.html

Gaza march - Hyde Park Underpass

2009-01-05T11:06:00.000-08:00

This is a short vid from Saturday. One of the cops needing to get a grip is the ubiquitous Wesley Pritchard (MD862), it's around 1 minute in:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A1qft9BUbNI
Shocking lack of respect for our hero police, I'm sure you'll agree.

Hands Off Gaza : Saturday 3rd Jan 12.30pm London Embankment

2008-12-31T05:50:00.000-08:00

On Saturday the 3rd January there will be another demonstration in solidarity with the people of Gaza and to call (once again) for an end to Israeli attacks.

The horror being inflicted upon Gaza is such that the job of dealing with the FIT could be seen as almost trivial in comparison, and for that reason this call out is hard to write. But the Met are very good at using the intimidation and harassment of Forward Intelligence Teams to kill off protest. If we are going to be effective in giving solidarity to the people of Gaza, we also need to be effective at protecting our own ability to protest on the streets of London.

The police have already been busy ‘gathering intelligence’ on those protesting this week outside the Israeli embassy, and they will be busy again on Saturday. The data, like all of that collected by FIT, will end up on a database in New Scotland Yard. Without knowing it, people who have taken part in legitimate and justified political protest will find themselves labelled ‘extremists’.

Nobody wants to be distracted from an issue as urgent and important as that of Gaza, and no-one should be. But we also owe it to ourselves not to stand by and allow the Met to get away with their normal brand of intrusion, harassment and bully-boy tactics. So this is the Fitwatch call for the demonstration on Saturday. Come and support the people of Gaza, but also come prepared to deal with the cameras, cordons and harassment of the Forward Intelligence Teams. Their presence is no longer accepted.

For further info see www.palestinecampaign.org

FIT officer admits in court to the existence of a protester database.

2008-12-12T16:03:00.000-08:00

A Forward Intelligence Team (FIT) officer this week admitted publicly that he entered data from FIT operations onto a centrally operated database. This is the first time the Met has publicly acknowledged the existence a database containing details of people involved in political protest.

The admission is significant because this database would hold a great deal of sensitive information about an individual’s political activity. The accumulation of information by the police on a person’s political affiliations or beliefs is a very sensitive area, and potentially a breach of the Human Rights Act.

FIT records could include not only which demonstrations an individual had attended, but also whether they had attended planning meetings or taken an active part in organisation. They would also include any association with recognised political organisations or groups.

PC Dan Collins (pictured above) was giving evidence in court during a trial of three activists charged with obstructing a police cameraman. He spoke openly about entering data gathered during FIT operations onto a computer system, a database that could be searched to provide information on individuals.

“Is there a mechanism to check which demonstrations [the defendant] has attended?” asked the defence.

“Not just [the defendant]. Thousands of people” he replied.

“And the system could check on just one individual?”

“Not me personally. But the police could, yes.”

The revelation will hardly come as a surprise to political activists that have been on the receiving end of the FIT’s data gathering activities. But it is another chink in the armour of the Public Order Intelligence Unit.

The three people on trial for obstructing a police cameraman were found guilty. Two were given conditional discharges and a third was fined. All three have been ordered to pay costs of £150. They are considering their appeal.

Fit at Climate March 2008

2008-12-09T06:55:00.001-08:00

More Photos here. All taken in Parliament Square.

A privatised police force, just for us…?

2008-12-08T05:25:00.000-08:00

It’s hard to know for sure, but it seems probable that the officers pictured above at Smash EDO in Brighton were collecting ‘intelligence’ on behalf of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). The NPOIU work alongside that other lovely bunch, NETCU (National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit) who came to public attention recently by escalating Earth First! and climate campers to the status of terrorists in an article written for the Observer newspaper. The article was later withdrawn by the Observer when it was slammed by their readership as unsubstantiated police propaganda.

However, both the article, and the retraction failed to mention that NETCU is not part of any police force at all. It is part of a private company. The same applies to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) whom we believe may have been operating at Brighton.
Both of these units are operated by an organisation which clearly states on its website that it is a private company. It is registered as such at Companies House, and provides annual returns. This company is ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers.

NETCU and the NPIOU (and believe it or not there is a third unit, the NDET – National Domestic Extremism Team) employ serving police officers seconded from police forces across the country. They appear to have access to police resources and intelligence. They gather and analyse intelligence which is then used to ‘advise’ police operations, investigations and public order strategy. They are, in effect, a privatised police force.

Unlike existing police forces, they do not have to answer publicly to a police authority - a body which is usually made up of local politicians and members of the public. Unlike police forces, they are not required to provide any information under the Freedom of Information Act. They appear able to operate without justifying their actions to anyone, save the Home Secretary.
This lack of openness and transparency is remarkable in an era where even MI5 must comply with the Freedom of Information Act. This total lack of accountability makes it even more disturbing that they are able to plant misleading and potentially damaging articles in a newspaper like the Observer.

Given they operate under this shroud of secrecy, little is known about these three interlinked units. We know they have in the past focused their attentions on animal rights campaigns, but have now developed a wider circle of interest. They have a stated aim to ‘reduce or remove the threat from domestic extremism’ with an apparent emphasis on protecting the interests of private business. Given the presence of the above officers at EDO, it seems the campaign against the Brighton arms company has also come under the heading of ‘domestic extremism’.

We also know these units have friends in high places. They have direct representation on the Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, a high level committee including counter terrorism units, the security services and high level government officials. One of the key roles of this committee is to work out what new laws might be needed in the struggle against terrorism and domestic extremism, and how best to use (or misuse) the huge amount of legislation they already have.

This is an unaccountable, outsourced police force, which has a clear self interest in promoting fear of ‘domestic extremism’ and in promoting the need for ‘intelligence’ on political campaigns. Alongside this, there is an obvious remit for promoting the needs of big business over such campaigns. The Forward Intelligence Teams know the value of having ‘intelligence’ on your opponents. It is therefore only right that we should make it our business to know what NETCU and NPIOU are up to, so that we can make sure we can devise strategies to, in their words, deal with them “effectively and robustly”.

We cannot afford to ignore the power of these organisations. However, we can arm ourselves with a knowledge and an awareness of the lengths these organisations are prepared to go to quash political protest and dissent.
Information is power, which is why so many police officers dislike this blog. It is why we, despite whatever legislation they devise, will continue to publish all the information we have on these police officers and the units that support and control them.

European Court Rules on DNA

2008-12-05T02:51:00.000-08:00

European Court Rules on DNA

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg yesterday found that the keeping of DNA from people who have no criminal convictions was a breach of their Article 8 rights to privacy. This should mean that the police will be forced to destroy hundreds of thousands of samples, including 40,000 taken from children.

This is exceptionally good news in itself, but the ruling could also re-open the debate about whether photographs and film retained by police public order intelligence units could also be a breach of Article 8. The courts have been heavily influenced by the DNA case when looking more generally at police rights to collect and collate data. Now the House of Lords decision on DNA is in tatters, the courts may be forced to accept that other forms of police data gathering also breach the Convention.

Of course, much depends on the government response to this ruling. The European Convention on Human Rights is not exactly popular amongst either of the two main political parties and there have been murmurings for many years that the European Court has too much sway over UK law. Jacqui Smith has so far commented only that she is ‘disappointed’ with the ruling and that the government will now ‘carefully consider the judgement’.

...and Ken Norman

2008-11-28T02:03:00.001-08:00

We'd also like to introduce Detective Sergeant Ken Norman. Ken works for CO11 doing the 'detective' work for the Met's public order unit. His work has included a number of Fitwatch trials, where people have been prosecuted (but rarely convicted) for obstructing police cameras. He is most noticable in his police liaison role, where he works with the courts, prosecution lawyers and police witnesses to make sure the police put forward 'the best possible case' and get convictions. Happily, his success rate doesn't seem to be very high.

We think he may work alongside the National Domestic Extremism Team, a small unit run by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) which appears to exist purely to pursue prosecutions against political activists. It's hard to know for certain however, because so little is known about this less-than-accountable unit, and Ken, for all his friendly smiles, is not exactly open with us about the structures he works within. (That's an open invitation, Ken - tell us all about it!)

Ken is well known for his friendly/chatty routine, but don't be fooled. If you are in court for a politically motivated offence, he'll want to get to know you a little. And it's not because he wants a new friend on facebook....

Counter Terrorism Bill receives Royal Assent and picture of head of NETCU

2008-11-27T13:56:00.000-08:00

The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 received Royal Assent on 26th November. This is obviously much earlier than we expected. However, we have not yet found out whether it is enforcable immediately, or whether there will be a date when it comes into law. If this is the case, we will publicise the date, and carry out our act of mass resistance then.

However, if it is effective immediately, we will propose a date for people to join the mass resistance.

Whatever the status, it is business as usual here at Fitwatch. We will continue to publish whatever details of FIT, NETCU, Evidence Gatherers, Special Branch etc we can lay our hands on.

Please send us any useful photographs, or information, and we will publish them on our blog. If for some reason the blog is shut down, check http://www.indymedia.org.uk/ or email defycops(at)yahoo.co.uk for updates.

So, to kick off the new era - here is a picture of Steve Pearl, head of NETCU (National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit)

If you see Steve wandering the streets of Cambridgeshire, be sure to say hello.

For further information about NETCU see www.netcu.wordpress.com