Thread by @copscampaign

The afternoon session of the #SpyCopsInquiry is starting now.
The 'live' transcript should appear in 10 mins....

We recommend watching the @outoflives version, on their youtube channel.

Today's special guest is none other than the legendary @MPeakeOfficial
reading as #spycops Sandra

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial You can read more about HN348's deployment in her written statement: ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial Ms Wilkinson is asking questions on behalf of the @ucpinquiry.

HN348 made her written statement last October.
She recalls using the name 'Sandra', and having seen some documents with the name 'Sandra Davis' still can't remember for sure if this was her.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She did not type her reports herself, she sent in a report that she'd written at one of the two SDS 'safe houses'. She would write a report after each event she attended.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She was asked why reports were often dated a few days later than the event said she would write her notes straight after the event but sometimes not do the 'full report' till later.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She didn't have much experience of writing these kinds of reports, and wasn't given much guidance.
She was told that this intelligence was needed to prevent the police being unprepared for public order situations like Grosvenor Square.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry According to her, the #spycops were “building up a picture of the people who were involved in these various groups”

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry [0000026387] The witness was shown this report – about a woman activist travelling to Albania on holiday – the activist's photo was attached to the report.

Why did you think this kind of personal info was necessary for Special Branch? she was asked

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry HN348 thought it might be "to do with the bookshop in North London, and the links with other extreme groups associated with that bookshop”

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry These 'extreme groups' - were these the same as the groups you spied on?

She said that the Women's Liberation Front merited more investigation by the #spycops because "of the way they were expressing themselves and their links" to other groups

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry Most of her reports concern her attending regular meetings, often in people's homes.

Was she ever given guidance about balancing people's privacy vs what was needed for 'effective policing' – for example was she given guidance about entering people's homes?

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She was told that her job was to "be an observer, not a participant", that she should avoid being an 'agent provocateur' but stick to recording what was said in the meetings she attended.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry Her supervisor would accept her hand-written report, she didn't always see the typed version, she says she didn' know who typed it or where it went.
She admitted that it was "possibly sent to the security services but said that she didn't think much about this at the time.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry We then saw document [0000014736] – which seems to prove that HN348 was tasked with gathering info specifically requested by 'Box 500' (ie the security services) – in this case a query about a change of address and telephone.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She was vetted before joining the police, and joined Special Branch in January 1971, having passed an exam and several interviews She didn't have any undercover experience before being asked to join the SDS, and it appears that she did this remarkably quickly – by mid-February.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She was asked if this meant her there were only 3-4 weeks before she was recruited into the SDS?
'Sandra' can't remember – she admits it was a short period of time – but maybe a few months rather than weeks in her estimation.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry She explained her motivations for joining Special Branch included her career development within the police, which she viewed as a long-term career. She was approached by Peter Imbert. Before this she had never heard of the SDS squad.

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry Asked why she was recruited, she said "perhaps they were just looking for a woman, and in those days there weren't that many of us! Perhaps there was nobody else.”

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry Peter Imbert explained more about the squad to her - that they worked undercover "to collect and disseminate info about anti-social behaviour"

@outoflives @MPeakeOfficial @ucpinquiry On page 5 of another document [0728971] we see:
"The arrival of a second woman officer has added considerably to the squad's flexibility and has proved invaluable in the comparatively recent field of women's liberation”.

The other woman was Jill Mosdell – Sandra confirmed that she knew Jill well and they became good friends.
Jill was deployed into the anti apartheid movement from 1970-73.

HN348 didn't know how long she would be deployed for.
And doesn't remember any 'home visit' from a senior officer.

She described her preparation for going undercover as taking off her wedding ring and make-up, finding a cover address (a shared house in Paddington-she only went there "periodically") and being ready to tell people she was a student at Goldsmiths if they asked (they never did).

She described some of the large women's liberation meetings that she attended (some of them involved hundreds of women) - and said that there were lots of stalls, leaflets being handed out, she didn't have to work hard to be invited to meetings...

She checked in with her managers about which meetings she should attend.
HN45 gave a presentation about the Maoist movement, and Manchanda.
HN348 said "I can't remember one word of that presentation, but it was really a group that was opposed to our form of democracy"

Apart from being advised to keep a 'low profile' she was given very little training or guidance.
Asked what she was told about 'subversion' and 'extremism', she repeated
“We all understood that these groups were working against our form of democracy”

Sandra said that her purpose was to see if the group would "take direct action or whether it was just words".

She was asked: So to your mind, direct action = a problem, but "just words" isn't?

Sandra started replying:
We're entitled to our opinions, we can say what we like, well no, we can't say exactly what we like but we've got Speakers Corner....

The next document [MPS-0741698] was a Home Office circular about informants taking part in crime. Sandra does not recall seeing this before, but felt she understood the principles.

She was very clear that she did not get involved in any criminal activities.

“You're there to uphold the law not break it... regardless of what role you're playing”

She said she never crossed the line.

According to her the police do use informants that are involved in criminality, but police officers shouldn't get involved in criminality.

Were there rules about forming close relationships with activists?

HN348 said she was told to “listen, learn and report back”, not to get close to the people they were spying on.

How did you know sexual relationships weren't allowed if this wasn't discussed?
“It didn't need to be discussed specifically, it was something that didn't happen”

She flatly denied any knowledge of her colleagues having relationships of this kind.

The #spycops met at their safe house several times a week.

She says they didn't share many details of their deployments with each other, they just “talked about perhaps some of the outrageous things that we'd heard, but we didn't go into too much detail of what we were doing”

She mainly reported to Phil Saunders. HN294 was also around at the time.
They would have a one-to-one debrief at the safe house.

She wasn't provided with any back-up or support, she was sent out alone. She actually created her own security arrangements (with her husband) for travelling home late at night.

She did not attend any SDS reunion events since leaving the unit.

She first learnt about the #spycops deceitful relationships very recently ( about 3 years ago)
"I found it quite shocking"

She watched the TV programme (World in Action) and read a book written by a former officer.

I didn't know... truth from lies at that time, what was fiction or any of it
She repeated “I knew nothing about it at all”.

In her written statement, HN348 said:
“Women's liberation was viewed as worrying trend at the time". It is clear that this is why she was recruited.

She hurried to clarify that this didn't mean the entire movement, just "factions within it"

As a woman officer, she was only paid 90% of what the male officers got.

Later in her statement is an account of an incident she underwent as a uniformed officer....

She tells of being trapped in a bus with other officers in the midst of a public order situation. The bus was alledgedly pelted with rocks by the crowd, then "they started rocking the bus and trying to set fire to it"...

She and her colleagues made it to safety, but were injured badly. She was told “you joined a man's job so get on with it”
She was asked if this was a representative 'flavour' of her experience at the time?

Why does she think she was sent to infiltrate the women's movement, specifically the Women's Liberation Front?

because of the links they had with more extreme groups

Was she given the names of the 'more extreme groups' that purportedly had links to the WLF?
“At the time there was a lot of unrest”....
She mentioned the Angry Brigade.
She also said the “Irish situation was very volatile”

According to her own statement, the activists that she spied on were not breaking any laws
(they were hosting meetings, leafletting and demonstrating – “all within the bounds of the law”)
She did not witness or participate in any public disorder during her entire deployment

In HN348's opinion, the WLF “was more talk than action”.
“I was tasked to observe them because Special Branch did not know much about them”

After this, there was a 15-minute break.

Ms Wilkinson continued her questioning after the break.
She suggested we look at some examples of the Irish connections and other links that Special Branch was concerned about...

The first document shown [00000026992] was a report of a WLF study group meeting on 11th March 1971 - this involved seven people - they met in someone's home.

Discussion turned to the low quality of recent speakers, then it reads:
“On Ulster, [x] praised the recent actions of the IRA, which she described as 'a good way to start a revolution'.

HN348 was asked to explain why she collected the exact words used in quote marks.

The next report [00000026996] was of
another meeting of the study group, 11 people this time

Discussion about the Chinese revolutionary film, 'The East is Red' due to be screened at a community hall. Was this a Maoist film?
"I'm assuming that's what that was, yes"

The next report shown was [00000026997]
This meeting (of the Friends of China) took place on 4th May – it was held in another private house, the home of Diane Langord (partner of Manchanda).

There was criticism of the time and money used to produce the WLF magazine.
And discussion about 'The East is Red' - whether there was too much/ not enough violence in this Chinese propaganda film.

The next document [00000027026] was a report of a WLF meeting that took place on 08/12/71.
The speaker had just returned from a trip to China.

According to the report this speaker “was clearly very impressed by the Chinese system”.
The group discussed various Chinese methods, including acupuncture.
This same speaker advocated 'violent revolution'.

The WLF changed its name to the Revolutionary Women's League (RWL), after some discussion.
Did that indicate a shift in the group's attitude or aims?
“Yeah, yeah, that would appear so” answered 'Sandra'.

Wilkinson read out the aims of the new Revolutionary Women's Union (as it became known).

(which were very similar to the demands of the women's liberation movement generally, with some added anti-capitalism and possible overuse of the word 'oppression')

'Sandra' was asked about connections with the Stoke Newington 8/ Angry Brigade.. she attended a women's lib conference in April 1972.
According to her report [0000008274] a woman associated with the Angry Brigade gave out copies of their 'Conspiracy Notes'

The Stoke Newington 8 was reaching out to other radical groups at the time for support.

The next report displayed [00000027028] was about a WLF weekly meeting that took place on 18/11/71 – again in someone's home - 15 people attended

There was a talk by Leila Hassan from the Black Unity and Freedom Party (BUFP)
Asked if Special Branch had asked her to pay special attention to this group, Sandra said “not to my knowledge, no”.

Was she aware of the trial of the 'Mangrove Nine'?
Wilkinson explained: They were being prosecuted following an incident in the Mangrove restaurant, somewhere that had been raided by (racist) police officers many times.

HN348 claimed to know absolutely nothing about this case, and nothing of Leila Hassan's connection with them.

Other reports - eg [0000026988] &
[00000026989] - were shown. HN348 apologised for not remembering anything at all about the meeting at the Duke of Clarence pub, or the Clara Zetkin study group in someone's flat.

There is a pattern of weekly meetinsg in people's private homes. The next doc [00000026990] is also about a private study group, to which she would have been invited. There are plenty of these reports

She does not recall anyone in the group discussing or revealing much about their personal lives.

Asked how she avoided revealing anything personal about herself, HN348 said she avoided it because she was never asked - “these people were very vocal” and liked to be listened to.

Did you feel uncomfortable spending time with these women every week, knowing that they didn't know you were a policewoman?
“I was doing a job at the time, so I wasn't, I don't think I considered that, no”
HN348 repeated: “I was just doing my job”

Wilkinson pointed out that many of the activities mentioned in HN348's reports were “of a different nature from links to the IRA” and included baking.
.

The BUFP held a children's xmas party in December 1971, and according to [00000010932], the WLF were asked to contribute home-made sweets and cakes.

"They wanted to get their philosophy across to as many groups as possible” she explained this solidarity.

The next report [00000010907] mentions a jumble sale was being organised by the group – again HN348 justifies this: “they would have used it as another opportunity for advertising their aims”

The next report [00000010931] mentions a letter, which criticised an un-named activist for having an affair, and mentioned another un-named person [who may or may not be the same person – we can't tell because of the names being redacted!] 's employment at Banner Books.

And how exactly did this help the effective policing of this group and its movement? asked Wilkinson.

Sandra suggested that it might help “give people an insight into what was happening at that time”.

We saw [00000010906] again. It is a report from the WLF's exec committee meeting on 16/02/72.
5 names are redacted. This was when the name-change was first formally proposed.

Does that mean that she was one of a small group (of six) who made the decision to include the word 'Revolutionary' in the group's name?

A month later, the exec committee met again [00000010911] – it was an emergency meeting, and again all five activists' names are redacted (so there were six attendees including Sandra).

This time, the committee decided to suspend three members from the RWU for 'disruptive behaviour'.
Again, did this mean she had any influence over this?

Wilkinson: Do you recall that this internal division led to reduced enthusiasm and drive within the group?
“I can't comment on that. I have no idea”.

HN348 was withdrawn from the field in February 1973 [at the same time as HN45 and Jill Mosdell]

It seems that she often spied on groups at the 'periphery' of the WLF/ RWU, 'spin-offs' of them.

Was she a 'trusted member' of the Women's Liberation Front? asked Wilkinson.

“I do not think my word yielded any good intelligence”

However 'Sandra' believes that her work “eliminated the WLF from public order concerns”

When do you think you did that?
“It's difficult to judge”
Probably up until the time I was withdrawn.
“I can't pin it down. It's very difficult – the sequencing of these events – it's nearly 50 years ago...”

Did you raise the view that the WLF really didn't “pose any public order concerns”?

Sandra told us that she stood by what she wrote in her statement last year:
“I could have been doing much more worthwhile things with my time”

In her written statement, HN348 also said “ I question whether police officers should be undercover at all”

And that remains her view now, 50 years after being deployed herself.

Her evidence ended there.

There was a short break so that Mitting could check if the non state core participants' lawyers had any questions for the witness.

Please follow @tombfowler for these and any answers!

@threadreaderapp unroll