Thread by @copscampaign

Final statement for the day at the #SpyCopsInquiry is Oliver Sanders QC, representing 100+ex #SpyCops. You can watch the live stream here or follow our live tweets in this thread ucpi.org.uk/hearing/openin…

Sanders' opening statement is one the Inquiry site here ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Sanders: We represent a number of mostly ex (though some current) #SpyCops, mostly from the SDS but some from later unit NPOIU, inc undercover & back room staff. Some became managers later. Total 114 clients, ~60% of SDS (~70% of those still alive)

Sanders: Not going to say much about individual #SpyCops, mainly about setting context & give key points for the Chair of the Inquiry. Firstly, institutional context for the SDS - Home Office, MI5, Met Special Branch. Then looking at public order policing generally

Sanders: After that, we'll look at late 60s political atmosphere, groups & public order. Then tomorrow morning we'll cover the functioning of the SDS itself & its operational contribution to public order & counter subversion

Sanders: SDS was 1 cog in much larger machine of security & intelligence. It was established & overseen by central government. Home Office was at the top of this pyramid [a pyramid machine?]

Sanders: Home Secretary sets functions for MI5 as well as overseeing police (the Met in particular). Commissioner of Met is appointed on Home Sec's recommendation. Home Office mandated Met Special Branch, of which SDS was a subunit. Home Office funded SDS 1968-89.

Sanders: Home Office was not just a ceremonial chief but intrinsically involved in the Met.

Sanders: first duty of police & any police officer is keeping the Queen's peace. Public order is paramount, key to functioning of a civilised society. Lord Scarman said maintaining normal society is the very function of police

Sanders: Right to protest is in conflict with right to continuous calm; balance must be struck that allows protesters to do their thing without impacting on the majority

Sanders: cities don't exist as blank canvases for protests to be imposed upon. As the police have to deal with many communities & keep peace, they must have information about what's going on. Hence intel units like SDS who were never about making arrests & bringing charges

Sanders: The Met had a Public Order Branch set up after the March 1968 Vietnam War demo which wanted to maintain usual police role in public events.

Met Special Branch existed mainly to provide public order intel to uniform branch, & intel on subversives 'terrorists and extremists' to MI5. It's one of many branches who don't make arrests at all.

Sanders: The SDS was doing normal Special Branch work but in a specialised way. [Euphemism of the day, there]. This intel then helped police manage major public order events ['manage' is quite the euphemism too]

Sanders: Police are simply ordinary members of society undertaking public service. No matter the strength of feeling, it doesn't include the right to attack other citizens just because they're in uniform

Sanders: Crowds can behave in ways that single members wouldn't; people are more prone to volatility. Disorder can demonstrate strength of feeling, create public alarm & political attention, & allege police brutality

Sanders: These kickoffs were coming from far left & anarchist organisations - far right were much less likely to present a public order threat in 1968.

Sanders: Most protests are peaceful & police want to facilitate it but sometimes attendees or organisers want to cause disorder and damage; they seek to provoke police in the hope the public will regard it as unnecessary. Intel has a huge part to play in dealing with this

Sanders is making a point of citing what he calls non police sources, which are all things like Home Secretaries, judges & a police dictionary.

Sanders: Most intel is necessarily acquired indiscriminately, value can only be appraised later on. Composition of groups associated with public order events is a legitimate target for intel gathering even if the individuals are no threat

Sanders: lawfulness of undercover policing was first confirmed in 1833, four years after the Met formed, after a complaint of infiltrating Chartists. It must invovle deception, so it's name calling to say #SpyCops are 'trained liars' or 'paid liars'

Sanders: Far left groups got members to infiltrate rival political groups such as far right or Irish republican. The question of #SpyCops ethics is whether the ends justify the means, rather than judging the means on their own terms

Sanders: It was a different time in the 1960s-90s, we shouldn't judge them by modern standards. [the Home Secretary feared the public finding out about #SpyCops - he knew they would be outraged; it was against the values of the time then as now]

Like the Met's representative Peter Skelton QC this morning, Sanders is citing the assassinations of Robert Kennedy & MLK. Now he's telling us a pint of beer was 1 shilling and 2 pence in 1968 and there were only 3 TV channels.

Sanders: Policing was different in 1968 too, they had whistles but no training on dealing in public disorder. Laws were different too, let's not judge #SpyCops by modern standards

Sanders: [implying it's not surprising if the police got a bit out of hand] 1968 was a tumultuous time compared to today [has he seen basically anything that's going on in 2020?]

Sanders: in 1968 there was no CCTV, very hard to gather & collate intel [still waiting for him to say why this makes identity theft, sexual abuse of women & undermining workers rights alright]

Sanders: It was important not to have too many or too few police at any given demonstration. Important to avoid paramilitary role, & to be seen to be politically neutral, to avoid escalation

Sanders: gathering intel meant police didn't have to prepare for disorder & equip with water cannons & baton rounds. Having #Spycops meant fewer officers being diverted to public order, which means they're free to do other police work. And cheaper.

Sanders has 3 demonstrably untrue points:
- police never intend to harm anyone
- #SpyCops are better than the alternative
- even though they're bad we can't judge them because it was a long time ago

He just keeps making them over & over with avalanches of pointless details.

We're now having a 15 minute break.

Sanders: Public order events changed in 1968, the March demo against the Vietnam War was different, the scale & nature of it all continually worsened from 1968 to 1982 [well, that's certainly one opinion; ignorant of earlier history, but still, an opinion]

Sanders: public order situations were worsening in 1968 because there was a generation of young adults that hadn't had a world war or national service [he really did just say this]

Sanders: increasing numbers of demonstrations meant that by 1978 police complained of missing days off and having to face abuse. A 1968 report says protest is troublesome, officers get kicked, pushed or assaulted; Maoists, Trotskyists & anarchists seek violence in such situations

Sanders: Demos were more frequent in number, often multiple ones on the same day. [not sure why this made the #SpyCops infiltrate the likes of Justice for Rhodesia and the St Pancras & Camden United Tenants Association]

Sanders has the gall to list injuries at demos & mentions the deaths of Kevin Gately & Blair Peach, who were killed by police. The officer who killed Peach has been identified but not charged. Peach's partner's justice campaign is one of those targeted by #SpyCops

Sanders has been rattling on about the need to use police resources efficiently, yet #SpyCops undermined dozens of justice campaigns like Blair Peach's. Resources that should have been spent catching killers were used to obstruct justice campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2018/02/14/whi…

Sanders: Not all public order situations were protests, & not all protests were public order problems, but in the period we're examining - 1968-82 - the most serious public order problems were protests with a counter-protest.

Sanders: because the groups that might create a public order situation kept changing #SpyCops monitored a range of organisations.

Sanders: Far left groups often sought to take over others, eg CND was targeted by CPGB, IMG, SWP, RCPB (M-L). [he lists numerous others and manages to say SWP targeted CND 3 times], so understanding who was really organising meant intel was required

Sanders: Sometimes far left groups had front organisations: Anti Nazi League, Rebel, Rock Against Racism, Smash the H Blocks, Stop the War & Women's voice were just a few SWP fronts

Sanders: far left groups often splintered and formed new ones. To understand it required a lot of intel.

Sanders: These groups had a right to pursue their bveleifs, police just wanted to understand what was going on in order to create threat assessments

Sanders: Support for Irish republicanism was a concern.Sinn Fein made Marxist statements, drawing support from far left groups. Advocating the end of internment was lawful [the internment itself that violated human rights, Oliver], but associated intel may have value to #Spycops

Sanders: The SDS #SpyCops had a back office, & 2 safe flats in changing locations where back office and undercovers could meet. 10-12 officers deployed at a time in far left, anarchist, Irish & far right groups.

#SpyCops officers in this period (1968-82) would spend some months in the back office preparing their legend & learning about their targets, arranging cover accommodation & vehicle. Twice-weekly meetings in safe flat & daily phone calls. Average deployment of 3-4 years.

Sanders: SDS gathered intel, and did counter subversion work for MI5. Monitored a large number of groups, actively infiltrated much smaller number. Had to report on 'softer outer circles' & at times when little was happening in order to be in place for more serious events.

Sanders: Some campaigns come up without warning in response to events, so they wanted #SpyCops to be in place already; by its nature this meant infiltrating groups that didn't seem to be worth it

Sanders: Intel was recorded in reports then catalogued. It was a slow & physical process using typewriters & carbon paper [oh god is he going to go on to prices of beer again?]

Sanders: As hard copy reporting was slow in the days beofr electronic communications, much of what the SDS did was face to face or on the phone, rather than written. And much of what was written wasn't retained. The extant files are a fraction of what was made.

Sanders: There is no basis for the suggestions of deliberate shredding of older SDS files to destroy incriminating evidence [as if #Spycops would do such a thing, eh Oliver? metro.co.uk/2020/03/18/met…
]

Sanders: A lot of SDS reports have been retrieved for the #SpyCopsInquiry from copies sent to MI5. However, officers remember certain reports that haven't been found. It may just be they weren't sent to MI5, or not retained. MI5 had a big subversion clearout in the 80s.

Sanders: this is nothing untoward, no blame to anyone, it's just the nature of what happens with documents from so long ago

We're ahead of ourselves, so we're wrapping up early. It means we'll probably bring forward tomorrow's schedule. Back again tomorrow at 10am. We'll put a report of today up on our site tonight & be live tweeting again tomorrow.