Thread by @copscampaign

First speaker at today's #SpyCopsInquiry hearing is Oliver Sanders QC, representing most former #SpyCops, continuing from his almost-fninished opening statement yesterday

Sanders: There were many public order threats in the period currently being examined by the Inquiry (1968-82), coming from political protests. the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) #SpyCops provided intel that was useful for policing these

but it's hard to quantify because few records have been kept & even at the time intel was 'sanitised' to obscure its source

Sanders: SDS' secondary function was providing intel to MI5 for counter subversion. Subversion is an amorphous concept and 'difficult to grasp as a threat to national security'. But ti's real, then & now

Sanders is citing hostile states sponsoring cyber attacks as subversion, as if that's got anything to do with those of us targeted by #SpyCops. This is like yesterdays 'undercovers protect us from terrorism & paedophiles' smears

Sanders: In the authorised history of MI5 by Christopher Andrew (2009) says in the 1970s a quarter of MI5 resources went on counter subversion. In 1980s they targeted CND, NUM, SWP, IMG, Militant Tendency among others.

Sanders: MI5 vetted thousands of government job applicants every day in order to exclude communists and fascists. They were concerned with the same groups and political ideas as #SpyCops - Trotskyist, Maoists, anarchists. MI5 considered funding the SDS.

Sanders: MI5 and #SpyCops liaised to ensure they didn't duplicate spying. most SDS intel reports copied to MI5 with the file reference numbers of the people/group already added. Very close& active working together, rather than MI5 passively receiving intel

Sanders: MI5 recommended tips to SDS #SpyCops, asked for specific info, etc. There's nothing sinister, surprising, or objectionable in this collusion, it's what both organisations were tasked to do.

Sanders: it would have wasted resources if #SpyCops & MI5 covered the same groups & may have ended up spying on each other

Sanders: #SpyCops weren't in a position to question MI5's focus, thinking & efforts. The Inquiry should make public more about the close working between #SpyCops & MI5.

Sanders: The collusion between MI5 & #SpyCops shows the SDS wasn't a rogue unit in choice of targets.

Sanders is basically saying that because MI5 targeted the same people in the same ways, it means the SDS was acceptable rather than both of them being unacceptable

Sanders: The SDS did not have any involvement in #blacklisting. It did not target justice campaigns, members of parliament or trade unions directly; it was inevitable collateral collection while spying on other things

#SpyCops officer Mark Jenner was a member of construction union UCATT. Here's a page from his 1996 diary where he went to his branch meeting

Sanders: talk of #SpyCops spying on thousands of groups is wholly wrong [the #SpyCopsInquiry is the source of this idea]

Sanders: #SpyCops stole dead children's identities up until the 1990s. Having a real birth certificate was the only way to prove a person was real, so was used to create fake identities [they could have claimed to be adopted or born abroad] campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2016/11/11/spy…

Sanders: Dead children's identities formed the basis of a #SpyCops persona but not the whole of it, they didn't pretend to be the actual person as if they had carried on living [this contradicts what's in the Undercover book by @PaulLewis & @robevansgdn]

Sanders: stealing dead children's identities was lawful, 'it didn't involve quote-unquote theft'. #SpyCops didn't invent it, other state agencies had done it before.

Sanders: without stealing dead kid's identities #SpyCops would have been at risk, or else no spycops and paramilitary police on demos instead. It was an unpalatable choice but the best of a bad bunch

Sanders: using dead children's identity came from a different time when people felt differently about death and risk, and doing this to protect people who were still alive.

Sanders: #SpyCops understand why using dead kid's ID is upsetting, some were even uncomfortable at the time but felt there was no choice. There was no pleasure taken in doing it, but we hope it is of some comfort

Sanders doesn't explain why, once #Spycops were stealing dead kids identities and the Home Office Select Committee demanded families were told in 2013, the Met refused. bbc.com/news/uk-233247…. In the end the Inquiry has had to tell them

Sanders: a couple of his clients admit to deceiving women into relationships while a #SpyCops officer - two admit long-term. But it appears a significant minority of SDS officers entered into such relationships. These shouldn't have happened and were wrong

Sanders: Many #SpyCops who deceived women into relationships were unsuitable for undercover work [this is nonsense, Bob Lambert fathered a child with 1 of the 4 women he deceived into a relationship, he was promoted to running the SDS & given an MBE for services to policing]

Sanders is now saying #SpyCops lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing & slipped into deceiving relationships with women. This is utter bullshit. It was common practice, integral to the job, known to the managers

Sanders: It's hard to conduct a public inquiry into a secret subject. There are 4 big obstacles integral to the task.
1 - Difficulties imposed by the Terms of Reference that are both too broad in covering 50 years, it's too long ago.

Sanders: But also, Terms are too narrow because they exclude #Spycops outside England & Wales when officers were in Scotland a lot and many other jurisdictions [we wholeheartedly agree on this!]

2 - We can't say what would have happened if there hadn't been #SpyCops so, on balance, who can say if they were a bad thing? [police apparently prevent escalation in public order situations]

Sanders is talking about how bad violence can be at protests & again invokes the deaths of Kevin Gately & Blair Peach - both killed by police at events organised by heavily spied-on groups. This is foul, despicable stuff.

Sanders:
3 - details of interception of mail & phone calls are unable to be disclosed after 1986 for legal reasons. If we can't use the evidence then the Inquiry is unable to get the full picture

Sanders:
4 - The open/closed divide. Inquiry has to protect privacy & identities. 34 out of my 74 #SpyCops client have anonymity granted by the Inquiry. If they were revealed some would be targeted and possibly killed [even though this hasn't happened to any outed spycops]

Sanders: Because the Inquiry can't talk about the dangerous work of #Spycops, it will give a disproportionate view of what they did & make it appear that it was only about relatively harmless stuff.

Sanders: Because we can't confirm or deny much of what the #SpyCops did, we can't defend it, and people can infer that we were bad because we won't answer and/or they've uncovered our unjustifiable behaviour [I'm paraphrasing a lot]

Sanders: We can't give details of officers who: targeted far right groups or other groups I can't even describe, were approached by foreign governments, an officer who was assaulted, officers who had to relocate to avoid being exposed.

Sanders: There's so much that must be kept secret that was serious & scary that the Inquiry will only expose fluffier stuff & that will make #SpyCops look bad [why didn't they just have a unit to do the scary stuff & not the unnecessary & inexcusable?]

Sanders: just because some #SpyCops did a thing it doesn't mean they all did. More info about the SDS dangerous & difficult work would be good for the public in order to balance the attention that's gone on to the other activities

Sanders: We don't blame the Inquiry itself for its bad terms of reference and excessive cost.

Sanders: we submit the SDs was lawful, effective & in the public interest in gathering intel & helping MI5. 'The SDS was a politically neutral cog as part of a much larger apparatus'.

Sanders: Some groups spied on had acceptable or even laudable causes. That's not the point. They were involved in public protest that may have been liable to be disorderly & may have injured people. The police must remain neutral & can't favour any group on ideological grounds.

Sanders: There's a right of free speech but no right to be heard or force views on others. There's certainly no right to arrange or participate in public events without police knowing. If we leave some groups alone it would be unfair, no group should be beyond reach of #SpyCops

Sanders: The #SpyCops weren't properly cared for by modern standards. Some will tell you of real harm because of a lack of aftercare. Some will say the Met should have done more to protect their reputation 'in the face of wild and exaggerated claims & allegations'

Sanders: #SpyCops work was stressful, about 20% had long term impact on mental health. A true understanding of the units means understanding pressure put on its members. Like all human insitutions it wasn't infallible. It was a creature of its times, very different to now

Sanders keeps talking like #SpyCops was an accidental event in distant 1968 - all of the outrages committed in the early days continued into the 21st century, after new regulations that should have ended them. Many of them were perpetrated to a worse degree later on

With that, Sanders finishes. The hearing will resume at 11.45