Thread by @copscampaign

Now at the #SpyCopsInquiry it's David Lock QC representing #SpyCops whistleblower Peter Francis @realspycop

Lock: We wouldn't hacve the Inquiry if it weren't for Francis. But he's not a policyhave maker or politician, he's only of use here as an ex spycop. Undercover he was a fake lefty campaigner, but now he's not a campaigner of any sort

Lock: Francis has had no assurance that he won't be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for what he revealed. He's paid a very heavy price for his revelations in the public interest

Such a prosecution would leave him open to forfeiture of his pension. He seeks assurances from the Commissioner won't be prosecuted nor have his pension removed because of past disclosures. He wants this before giving evidence to the Inquiry

Lock: Francis hasn't been asked to make a statement, and memories are fading. He says undercover policing is legitimate in the right circumstances; that policing must be transparent & with the consent of the public.

Lock: #SpyCops can't be exposed at the time, but some time after deployment people could be told. Keeping the lid permanently on the box shouldn't be an option.

Lock: Francis doesn't have the expertise to give timetables, but there must be a time when the state says who has been lied to & why it was justified.

Lock: it's clear when Francis was #Spycops that there wasn't proper governance govenrmance & oversight that balance the needs of the force & the rights of targets. The Inquiry must decide whether it's changed much

Lock: claims of #SpyCops procedural change must be taken with circumspection as they come from professional liars in defence of their position.

Lock: the duty of care owed to officers is routinely breached because the Met doesn't see the stress of lying and deceiving as part of the day job. Those who live untruths for extended periods will find themselves in the psychological shadows.

Lock: Those targeted by the SDS were supposed to be subversives seeking the undermining of the state, but this was conflated with the policies & convenience of the government of the day, and of economic interests.

Lock: The Vietnam War was the policy of a foreign government yet was seen to be a subversion of the UK. none of the original target groups were proscribed. Francis believes it is never justified to spy on nonviolent groups

Lock: He left the Met with fragile mental health having lost the real Peter Francis from living a lie for so long.

Lock: Focus is rightly on victims of this barely & badly regulated activity, but dedicated #SpyCops like him were badly failed by the state too. He had to resort to litigation, which was settled in 2006.

Lock: On 14 March 2010 Francis began his journey of disclosure because he believes the public have a right to know what is done their name & with their money. By 2011 the guardian had published more articles with him ads Peter Black, and in 2013 the unmasked himself

Lock: He said he came forward despite threats of prosecution. but he came forward because he can't imagine a case being brought against a whistleblower in the public interest;

Lock: but also since a breakdown in 2001 he has only just reached a pace where he can deal with whatever they throw at him.

lock: He doesn't seek any anonymity. In 2018 he revealed the dead child's idenity he'd used, aware of the upset it might cause the family, to bring the full truth.

Lock: Whistleblowers have inadequate protection, & Francis faces the additional threat of the Official Secrets Act. There is no support for those who do it after leaving a job, or release the info to the public domain

Lock: Whistleblowing is usually of interest not just for the facts, but for the failure of the institution to admit the truth early on. The Met don't recognise Francis as a whistleblower, so he has no security

Lock: Police are effectively banned from whistleblowing, even if the facts are about public harm.

Lock: Francis' evidence is likely to be useful to the Inquiry whatever period it examines, yet hadn't been asked for a witness stastemernt, nor received a witness pack.

Lock: Such a draconian incursion into lives of ordinary people expressing peaceable opposition to the government of the day is wholly unjustified. It beggars belief that the Women's Liberation Movement or Croydon Libertarians posed a threat to society itself.

Lock: #SpyCops continue to lack proper scrutiny about whether their deployments are justified. A scrutinising judge is there on behalf of the targets, yet doesn't act that way.

Lock: #SpyCops can destroy lives, both those they spy on and those of the officers themselves. It cannot be done lightly

Lock: Those affected by #SpyCops should be told, and should be able to have compensation if the targeting was unwarranted. There should be judicial oversight before, during & after undercover activity

Lock: There should be long term aftercare for #SpyCops as PTSD is a long term condition