Thread by @copscampaign

The #SpyCopsInquiry now hears from Heather Williams QC representing Category F Core Participants, Relatives of Deceased Individuals whose identities were stolen by #SpyCops as the basis for their fake persona

Families suffered the horror of a child dying. Then they suffered the horror of finding out about #SpyCops violation because of their bereavement. It was in the perios being examined, 1973-82, that the practice became standard.

How did it start?At what level was it condoned? Were there no alternatives? They've been waiting for answers for year - Barbara Shaw found out in 2013, her health is failing, yet still she waits for answers

Did the theft serve any legitimate purpose? There appears no clear rationale, no justification for this repulsive practice. From 1968-72 #SpyCops did not seem to do it, and none suffered compromise.

Families suffered the horror of a child dying. Then they suffered the horror of finding out about #SpyCops violation because of their bereavement. It was in the perios being examined, 1973-82, that the practice became standard.

How did it start?At what level was it condoned? Were there no alternatives? They've been waiting for answers for year - Barbara Shaw found out in 2013, her health is failing, yet still she waits for answers

Did the theft serve any legitimate purpose? There appears no clear rationale, no justification for this repulsive practice. From 1968-72 #SpyCops did not seem to do it, and none suffered compromise.

There seem no change in circumstances to make #SpyCops need to alter the practice of simply making up identities. We have looked through the police docs released and see no evidence for it.

Apart from HN298, it seems made-up ID was normal until a change of management in 1974. [the 1973 film Day of the Jackal showed it, & may have inspired #SpyCops]

Only one officer was compromised in 1974, when someone who'd known him as a uniformed officer recognised him in a meeting. His choice of fictitious ID played no part in his exposure.

The #SpyCops annual report 1972 confirmed advantages of using 'a fictitious name' that allows officers to return to their real ID at any time. 1973 annual report talks of no 'irretrievable exposure of any SDS officer'. There was no need to change tactic to stealing real IDs

The 1990s #SpyCops Tradecraft Manual talks of 'finding a suitable ex person' with a 'natural or unspectacular death' and the 'respiratory status' of the parents
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
[Credited author: Andy Coles @sackandycoles ]

From 1974 #SpyCops used ID of dead children, & were instructed &/or expected to do so. Officers who queried were told it was the usual process. They wanted kids born around the same time as the #SpyCops officer concerned, with the same first name.

We haven't been shown any docs that show why it happened, let alone any consideration of the damage to the real human families involved, and indeed police and policing. They seemed to assume they'd never have to answer for it.

In last year's hearings, police lawyers spoke of 'essential operational imperative' to steal real ID. A birth certificate would prove ID if challenged [how would they explain a death certificate though?]

Police lawyers said some #SpyCops were uncomfortable with stealing dead children's IDs, but thought the families would never know. There is no evidence to show that it helped #SpyCops, even before we consider the ethical issues

The National Crime Squad says none of the Regional Crime Squads they know of, who had #Spycops, stole dead children's ID, so why did the SDS feel it 'had to'? The SDS say they were going into 'more security conscious organisations'.

If that were true, why was there no increase in other measures to protect #SpyCops' security? One officer says his ID 'was not particularly detailed' as it was largely left to officers to do it themselves, with little to no guidance. It hardly sounds like security was intense

Another officer says 'I made my 'legend' up as I went along' and it was not tested by managers. There was no imperative to steal the identity of a dead child.

But Frederick Forsyth's Day of the Jackal novel was published in 1971, the film in 1973, showing the practice of #Spycops stealing dead children's identites. Is this where it began? [officers called the process The Jackal Run]

Officer Richard Clark was outed when comrades confronted him with the death certificate of Rick Gibson, who he was claiming to be. There are reasons why a living person might not have a findable birth certificate, but never a death certificate.

In 1974 Richard Clark was one of the first #Spycops to steal a dead child's identity, and it blew his cover. Why did the practice carry on for over 20 years?

Clark had relationships with women he spied on. His behaviour was not security conscious, he did not keep distance & low profile. It's amazing he had no disciplinary charges, and that stealing identities continued.

Fictitious identities offered *better* cover to #SpyCops than stealing dead people's identities. There was no justification to start, & none to continue after Clark was exposed in 1976.

If security was really so important, why did managers not properly prepare #SpyCops & stop them behaving in a way that risked their ID? Why were they given so little direction & so much latitude to make up their own mission?

Very few #Spycops seem to have any qualms of conscience about stealing dead children's ID, let alone acting immorally in the dead person's name, deceiving women into relationships, getting arrested & convicted.

One officer, Colin Clark HN80, said 'I knew that it would cause distress for the family if it was discovered'. Did his managers who knew that stop to think? did his colleagues discuss it? Were #SpyCops given any choice?

HN80 changed the identity used - his own DOB & different forename - yet he had a 5 year deployment without being compromised

HN96 was instructed to visit Blackpool where the person whose ID he stole was born, with local Special Branch helping him find out if the family still lived there. Hard to imagine this was a one-off. This isn't just using names but more complete identities.

Officer HN13 was convicted of public order offences in the name of a dead child. Was there any regard for the smirching of good names, or the impacts on families who may find out?

The callous interference with bereaved families was consistent with the broader culture & practices of the SDS. not a hint of consideration as to the proportionality of their actions, nor thought of consequences on others, no review of efficacy or risk.

Stealing ID simply became embedded practice in a unit that lacked legitimacy, accountability & effective supervision.

We're seeing excessive redaction of documents, told it 'may harm policing'. How can it do that if it is an abandoned practice? It's the fact of the theft that harms policing.

We invited the #SpyCopsInquiry to check if the Met's redactions of the evidence that damns them is actually justified, or if it's concealing something else.

It appears MI5 had helped with fictitious IDs & helped with materials to support them. There's nothing to show why the SDS decided to move away from that. The reason is still an unexplained mystery.

With that, Heather Williams concludes. There will be a 10 minute break, back at 11am to hear from James Scobie QC representing Richard Chessum and “Mary”.

Here's our 2016 post on #SpyCops stealing dead children's identities.
campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2016/11/11/spy…

In 2013, Pat Gallan – Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met & head of its #spycops investigation Operation Herne – told the Home Affairs Select Committee they had only found 1 case of dead child identity theft

Gallan said the combined efforts of Herne’s 31 staff had failed to find any more in the subsequent 5 months. She refused to apologise for the practice.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cm…

The Home Affairs Select Committee report insisted on the truth being told about #SpyCops stealing dead children's identites & demanded all parents be told and given an apology by the end of 2013. The Met simply ignored them publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cm…

Later in 2013 Herne reported that, contrary to Gallan’s claim of it being isolated and unauthorised, identity theft of dead children was pretty much mandatory in the SDS for 20 years, with instructions laid out in the SDS Tradecraft Manual. met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/…

The Met later issued a generalised apology for stealing dead children's identities, addressed to nobody in particular. It's fallen to the #SpyCopsInquiry to contact families, years after they had been identified. The Met is still not giving answers.