Thread by @copscampaign

The #spycopsinquiry is starting again - so we will be able to report on what's being said, again with a ten-minute delay, by 'HN45' (who used the cover name 'Dave Robertson') and then by 'HN347' ('Alex Sloan').
HN45's witness statement is now available: ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Dave Robertson – known as HN45 by the Herne Inquiry – was deployed undercover in 1971, but was 'compromised' and withdrawn in 1973.

Why did he not use the identity of a deceased child?
“I just didn't”. He said he wasn't aware of what other officers chose to do.

He recalls Jill Mosdell – another early woman #spycop – but isn't sure about 'Sandra'.

The first document we looked at was [UCPI/10524] – which you can see at ucpi.org.uk/publications/s… - a report of a Britain Vietnam Solidarity Front (BVSF) meeting at the Union Taverm in October 1970.

Phil Saunders' seems to have signed off on it.
HN45 confirmed that he didn't type up his reports himself, he would write it up and it was taken away to be typed up by someone else (in the back office).

He was asked about the numbering system that can be seen at one side – the 'reference' ending in /70/164.

He was asked if he has worked in Special Branch before joining the SDS? Yes. He was invited to join the SDS by Helen Crampton (who we heard about in the November hearings), but has no idea why she approached him.

He says he didn't know much about the unit before joining it, but “Special Branch was quite a small knit community and people knew what might have been happening or not happening” and repeated that “everybody knew to some degree what was happening”.

He was unsure about numbers - “people were coming and going all the time”.

What did Helen tell him about the role? He can't recall now, it was a long time ago. He knew that he would be doing undercover work.

“I was kind-of aware” of the unit's mission – he knew that it had been formed as a result of the 'riots' in Grsovenor Square. According to him the anti-war protestors “created mayhem” and this was due to a lack of police intelligence.

He told a story about seeing some demonstrators running around with scaffold poles that day.

According to him Special Branch "was a secret organisation anyway, and everyone in it was 'positvely vetted' so by definition it was a secret department."

Pressed on how much chat there was in Special Branch about the SDS, he said “you wouldn't really talk about the specifics”.

He explained that the work of the SDS was “much more targeted” than his work in the wider/ more general Special Branch. He hadn't done any undercover work before.
He received no training as such.

He does remember spending some time in the SDS back office (recalling “an old police house” at the back of a police station) before going out in the field. This was the headquarters, where admin was done, completely separate from the #spycops various 'safe houses'.

“Most of the people who went into that job... they just got on with the job and picked it up very quickly”. He says it wasn't difficult to pick things up as you went along.
#SpyCops

He passed intelligence back to his managers, but knew that it was being copied to the security services (because of the 'Box 500' stamp).. He explained that he often saw these reports after they'd been typed up.

We are unsure what we can tweet now, as the Inquiry suddenly went into an 'emergency break' - it appears that people trying to follow from home have been left with no information about this - no explanation on screen.

Even those of us who are in the hearing room have not been informed of the reason for this sudden pause. The entire reason for the ten-minute delay rule was so that the Inquiry could stop us from reporting on anything that is meant to be kept secret...

However nobody from the Inquiry team has been able to tell us (or our lawyers) anything so far.
This is pretty disappointing from an Inquiry that has already cost the public £36million.

We hope that Mitting will have the decency to explain/ apologise for this mishap when/ if the hearing recommences
@ucpinquiry

@ucpinquiry Proceedings are now starting again. A Restriction Order has been made to prevent us from sharing a detail with you that was said out loud by 'Dave Robertson'.

@ucpinquiry We can share this with you - the next document was [MPS-0739241] ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
a letter dated 10th March 1972 – it appears to be a request for details of an individual activist's employment.

@ucpinquiry Asked if he recalled MI5 making such requests for information of the SDS, he suggested that it was “obviously pretty routine”.

@ucpinquiry When he joined the unit, he had no idea how long his time with the #spycops would last.
“In my case it came to an abrupt end very quickly”

@ucpinquiry He says he wasn't in the field for three years. However Wilkinson pointed out that his first reports are dated late 1970, and the last in early 1973.

@ucpinquiry The unit's meetings took place at its 'safe houses'. These are described as “diary days” by HN45. Most of the SDS officers would turn up, clutching their expenses claims.
He sometimes went there on other days too, but there weren't so many people around then.

@ucpinquiry Sometimes these expenses were reimbursed “in hard cash”.
HN45 had a cover flat, for which he paid approx £4/week in cash.

@ucpinquiry He would communicate by phone (from a phone box) with the back officer, but didn't have any other, personal numbers/ direct lines for the SDS managers

@ucpinquiry According to 'Dave', “Special Branch officers are renowned as 'zip-mouths' “ – a new phrase on us!

He was asked if his colleagues would have spoken about things like relationships and events that occurred during their time undercover? But doesn't remember this happening.

@ucpinquiry He remembers 'Alex Sloan' and Mike Fergusson (unusually we know this guy's real name but not his cover name) Fergusson was known as' Gimly' by his colleagues.

@ucpinquiry Fergusson was deployed to spy on anti-apartheid activists like Peter Hain, so was reporting back on the Stop the Seventy Tour.
Did he and HN45 ever discuss this?
“Not to my knowledge”.

@ucpinquiry HN45 had 'cover employment' as well as a 'duff flat' – he knew someone who ran a garage so pretended to 'work' there.

@ucpinquiry He told us more about his use of the cover flat – he would usually travel to/from it before/ after political meetings and events. He wasn't trained to do this, it's an example of him using his initiative.

@ucpinquiry He let his hair grow longer after joining the 'Hairies'.
He wasn't provided with any ID (a driving licence etc) in his cover identity.

@ucpinquiry He says that he was not aware of colleagues at the time being provided with such documentation. He now says that it would have been better/ 'more professional' to have these.

@ucpinquiry He recalls one occasion when a group of activists questioned him about his identity – he describes this as “a very personal face-to-face grilling” .

@ucpinquiry “They didn't know who I was, and in those days it wasn't just the police doing that, there were lots of other organisations doing the same thing”

@ucpinquiry “Most of the people that I met were paranoid about infiltrators”

How did he reassure them? He can't remember any specific tactics, he “just talked to them”.

@ucpinquiry He doesn't remember driving any vehicles around activists. According to him, “there were no (SDS) cars” at that time, he thinks the office may have had some hire cars, but has no idea who drove them and what they were used for..

@ucpinquiry He insists that other #spycops “could never ever have gone public with that car” - think because of the risk of getting a producer and not being able to provide ID

@ucpinquiry He reiterated that the #spycops received very little training, or guidance in who to target – they were left to their own devices.

@ucpinquiry HN45 is shown a copy of the form that we saw yesterday – it looks to be an application from 'Dave Robertson' to join a Maoist study group in 1971. ucpi.org.uk/publications/e…

@ucpinquiry He doesn't remember much about the study group or recognise the form

@ucpinquiry He doesn't recall any guidance about what might constitute 'extremism' or 'subversion' – according to HN45 “it was just part and parcel of the whole”

@ucpinquiry We looked at a report on the RMLL signed by HN45 in Dec 1970
He confirmed that “small attendance was the norm” at many of these groups' meetings.
He felt it was important to include this kind of info in his reports, so that somebody (else) could “make an assessment” of that group

@ucpinquiry He would include everything that he thought was worth reporting – including details of flowers given to speakers/books presented.

He agreed that “everything was fair game for reporting” - it was someone else's job to decide what to do with the intelligence he collected.

@ucpinquiry Special Branch held files on lots of people and groups. He and other SDS officers could access them if they wanted to.

@ucpinquiry ucpi.org.uk/publications/e…
[UCPI 0000010567]

I never went to anybody's home unless I was invited” he insists. “I never pushed myself to go there”
Wilkinson asked him why he thinks he was invited to attend this RMLL meeting, but he doesn't know.

@ucpinquiry He was asked how often he visited this home (where Diane Langford and Manchanda lived).
He claims that he definitely did baby-sit for the couple's child – he says that he was asked to by Manchanda and “couldn't get out of it"...

@ucpinquiry However he recounts that he can't even remember seeing the child and thinks they were in a different room from him, and that the couple weren't away for a very long time.

@ucpinquiry [MPS730516] ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…

This is a letter about the fate of Banner Books, a radical bookshop which HN45 had infiltrated to such an extent that he was asked to take over its running in 1972.

@ucpinquiry He says that he was never alone in the shop, and had no access to any records (the ostensible reason for this intrusion) – he doesn't think he ever had keys to the shop.

He has no memory of any fire at Banner book-shop, “certainly not in my time” - even though someone died in it

@ucpinquiry [UCPI 0000011737]
RMLL meeting attended by 12 people – a three hour lecture by Manchanda followed by some discussion.
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
He has no recollection about how he came to attend this meeting.

@ucpinquiry Asked why his reports refer to 'Al rather than 'Abhimanyu' Manchanda. According to HN45, “people called him Al” - directly contrary to the evidence we heard from the guy's wife just yesterday

@ucpinquiry He says that the name Fawzi Ibahim, which crops up in a few reports, “means absolutely nothing to me at this stage”

@ucpinquiry ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
HN45 reported on this PSC meeting. He was asked why his reports talked about how much influence Manchanda had over the group.

According to him the #spycops were interested both in what people were doing and what they weren't doing

@ucpinquiry The next report [UCPI 11741] was from an incredibly long extraordinary meeting of the Maoists.
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

HN45 says he particularly remembers this meeting in particular because it was on a Saturday.

@ucpinquiry HN45 says he can't recall very much else, but does remember someone picking up a guitar and entertaining the group by singing the words of a Mao speech (the “Take not a needle and thread from the masses” one) to the group

@ucpinquiry However he doesn't seem to remember the purpose of the meeting as clearly.
His report says that the purpose was to “cut down to size” Manchanda. Other words used to describe this activist include “offensive”, “dogmatic”, "bullying" etc .

@ucpinquiry 'Dave' now says he has no memory of writing this stuff down and claims that he “didn't really get deeply personal with any of these people”.
However his report paints a different picture. He can't explain why he used the language that he did, & claims not to remember any detail.