Thread by @tombfowler

We are back at the #spycopsinquiry with the reading of Ernest Rodker’s written statement by Oli Rodker.

The whole of the 50 pages of the written statement will not be read out.

we are first treated to a photo of the Irish Liberation Press, before the correct photo of Ernest is shown

You can read the written statement that is currently being read out: ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

On the Stop The Seventy Tour:
"We used all classic forms of non-violent direct action ('NVDA') — pitch invasions being the most prominent. We understood and sought to follow the well known principles of NVDA and civil disobedience learned from recent history"

I do remember STST being very cautious about who was involved, but I cannot remember any incidents where this was put into practice. Having said that STST did not formally have members. It comprised of people who were
sympathetic to our aims & methods, and wanted to get involved.

in the campaign against the white-only South African rugby team in 1969 I booked into a hotel, in an affluent part of central London, overnight where the team were staying. I sat among the players in the lounge eavesdropping on them and getting their room numbers.

While they were still in the lounge or having supper, I may myself have glued their door locks and certainly shared the room numbers with other campaigners, who did so

I am not asked about my knowledge or interaction with Mike Ferguson. I can say that I don't remember this person. I understand, in any event, that this is this officer's real name, as opposed to his cover name, the name I
might have known him by.

I am asked about STST's attitude to violence. I agree that we were committed to 'non-violent direct action'. I would not accept that it was right or accurate to describe our tactics, as the report does, as 'militant' (particularly given the connotations of that word in that era).

There was an awareness that there would be infiltrators within the movement and that the authorities were trying to monitor what we were doing by the use of phone tapping and suchlike, and the placing of people covertly at meetings.

Our concern was that the UK police were the ones monitoring & infiltrating us.. I assumed that the apartheid South African authorities may have taken action against the anti apartheid movement. I assumed that they were particularly interested in the high profile organizers

I am asked to what extent did STST break the law in order to further its aims.

The term 'break the law' in the question is ambiguous, does 'the law' I am asked about include the civil as well as criminal law? I am sure I received some civil injunctions during my time

The main tactic of STST and the actions of the majority of those taking part in its demonstrations was to run onto cricket and rugby pitches to disrupt play. I think I am right in saying that this was seen as a trespass and trespass was not at that time a criminal offence.

I do not recall digging up pitches myself. Others may have done this. I may have put weedkiller on a pitch. All this, though, I would have considered marginal, in terms of justification within NVDA - as it was non-harmful of people - so I may have considered it

I am asked my 'political activities as part of Pavement Collective'.
Its aim was to report on local activity & actions of local community groups. To publicise actions of those who defended their local community & encourage campaigns on issues like housing, race, jobs & similar.

I am asked if we were concerned about infiltration by police or others. We were concerned in principle. But we were also a small group of people, most of whom had known each other over a long period of time and therefore trusted each other.

A photo is shown of Ernest Rodker when in Battersea Redevelopment Action Group ('BRAG')

There was no formal structure. We had meetings. We called ourselves a 'committee' which met regularly, and its regularity depended on what was going on at Battersea Power Station

I am asked if BRAG had a particular political doctrine.

There was no party political doctrine. The politics we espoused were based on the principle that council developments and initiatives should be public and for the community, rather than private and for commercial interests.

I would like answers from this Inquiry on the following
issues. i would like to know if any other undercover police officer, beyond those already disclosed to me, was involved in any of the campaigns I have been involved in.

During anti-nuclear campaigns, late 60s onwards, we occupied Grosvenor Square, Trafalgar Square, Whitehall etc on various occasions. These were mass demonstrations, peaceful sit-downs with some campaigners linking arms and others using padlocks and chains

to attach themselves to each other. It was clear to me that the police, frustrated by the task of having to remove us, lost control and used unnecessary force towards us. They punched, often surreptitiously; dragged people violently out of the way; stamped on people

I am asked about two Special Branch reports dated 1976 containing very personal information about the birth of one of my children & a health condition of mine.
The information, in the first report, about the birth of my son is accurate. I did have a health problem.

I find it sinister and invasive and it troubles me greatly to learn of it, even after all this time.
It's not a surprise that the police were monitoring some of the activities I was involved in. But it's a surprise that they were taking a note of the birth of my son & health.

Although I am not asked this, I am particularly surprised that these records have been kept for over 40 years. This is also sinister. It is not as if I was an international criminal. It is reminiscent of the behavior of authoritarian states. It has no legitimate justification

I see that #spycops 'Michael Scott', attended the planning meeting for a demonstration, having, supposedly, been told of it by Peter Hain's mother on the phone. This sounds unusual. She is unlikely to have told someone she did not know about something so delicate on the phone.

'Michael Scott' may also have been privy, either indirectly
(from what people told him) or directly (by attending meetings) to private legal discussions between activists / defendants and their lawyer. He may ehave influenced or had the opportunity to influence those discussions

innocent demonstrators should not be convicted of offences they have not committed... failure to view activists as individuals with legitimate rights & interests & decision to place those 2nd to unfettered gathering of information may be a precursor to some more gross abuses

I challenge the legitimacy of the police spying on me at all, and to such an extent and then retaining these records for such a long period of time. I would be very interested to learn what else the UK authorities may have recorded about me and my activities.

Oli has finished reading the statement (sorry for not covering all of it).

Sir John Mitting says that he is only investigating the SDS and NPOIU, there are other police spies he is not investigating.