Thread by @copscampaign

[UCPI 00000 8660] ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
STST's first national conference took place in March 1970. Both of today's witnesses are listed as attending it.

Jonathan pointed out that the speech reported on was given by Peter Hain, who was“by no means an extreme leftist”
(we'll hear from Peter Hain himself tomorrow)

The Stop the Seventy Tour campaigners felt that it was important to hold as many demonstrations as possible, at sports grounds all over the country...

...both to show the strength of public feeling about the planned sports tours, and to educate people about the issue (the apartheid regime in South Africa)

Mitting had a question for the witness – is this the same Michael Brearly went on to captain the English cricket team? Yes it is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Brea…

The #spycopsinquiry then took a short break - will be back in 10-15 mins

The next document [UCPI 00000 14399 ] ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
was a report of the STST's London region conference, held on 5th April 1970.
It was chaired by Ernest Rodker

The report quotes someone saying “many coloured people felt that cricket didn't really affect them” and other things
Who said this? And why is their name being kept secret? asked Jonathan.

What was their role? And how much weight can we attach to the words of one unknown individual?
Without any further clues as to this person's identity he can't really comment on it.

She also asked him about one expression used in this report- “a hard core of militants” - he said he thought a “a small number of committed individuals” would be a more accurate description.

The STST campaign was a “nice floppy liberal alternative organisation, which many people could join” said Jonathan.
There was no party line, no 'militancy' as such, and the only thing everyone agreed on was the the need to end apartheid.

Obviously some of the campaigners were exiled South Africans.

A smaller planning committee was set up as a result of this large meeting – and trusted people were invited to join this.

[UCPI 00000 086] ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
A 'special planning group' meeting took place at the London School of Economics (LSE) on 7th May.
According to the report, this was attended by Rosenhead and eight others (whose names are all redacted).

He remembers how small his room was, and has serious doubts that a meeting of nine people could have fitted into it.

He complained about the “hyperbolic language” used in the #spycops reports that we have seen. He said he thought that things had been misrepresented and made to sound more serious than they were.

“I think it's been souped up for the eyes and ears of the senior officers”

He made the point that his group were involved in organising direct actions with small numbers of people – not mass demonstrations or tactics like pitch invasions.

The report goes on to list a whole range of tactics which demonstrators might use at the demo being planned for 6th June.

Asked what was meant by the advice that demonstrators should 'do their own thing 'once they'd made it on to the pitch, Jonathan said that in his one experience of making it to the pitch he didn't have anything to do, except hang around and wait to be arrested.

He noted that the report only says that things like fireworks were 'advocated' - “that means somebody brought forward this bright idea” during a brainstorming session.

It doesn't mean it actually happened – Jonathan said that this sounded like someone who was “a little bit more ardent than us”

"And the use of fireworks or 'thunder flashes... presumably their use would be to create anxiety...??”
Rebekah betrays once again the Inquiry's clueless thinking

<we are forced to assume that neither Mitting nor his team have any experience of attending any demonstartions ever>

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

This next report [MPS-0736368] is about a meeting which discussed taking action at the airport when the sports teams disembarked.

Hummerstone is still obsessed with the idea that fireworks were being used, and there was any intention on the part of the activists to scare people or (in her words) “create panic in the airport”

Jonathan asked what the Special Branch coded phrase (“delicate and reliable source”) means.
At first she lied to him, saying that this phrase appears on all the reports from this era. However as we all know, it doesn't. Rebekah has no idea. Or doesn't want to tell us. You decide.

Although the report refers to the idea of smoke bombs being used at “some form of 'happening', and explicitly says that these would be “spectacular” - again Rebekah asks if this was done in order to cause fear?

Other tactics brought up included releasing ticker tape from a weather balloon.

The whole thing is littered with wishful thinking and wild speculations” Rosenhead says.

According to him most of their actions were small, with “occasional forays of one or two people to try and add a little bit of extra spice to the sauce”

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Jonathan does remember being forced to discuss what to do next, once the campaign had been 'successful'
The sports tours were cancelled as a result of their actions.

The Caborra Bassa dam campaign spring up, and it was natural that anti-apartheid campaigners would get involved in it. However there was no formal overlap between it and the STST group.

[MPS- 736399] ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Supposedly a Keep Politics Out Of Cricket committee was formed in opposition to the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign – circulating a petition etc.

Rosenhead's witness statement makes it clear that this was “a complete fiction", created by someone who wished to discredit him and his fellow campaigners, but reported on as fact by the undercover who wrote this report.

Did this fictional group's advert appear in the Daily Telegraph?

Rosenhead points out that this is said to come from a 'reliable source', not a 'delicate and reliable source'.
Mitting points out that this is not thought to be an SDS document (suggesting that it comes from Special Branch more widely?)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

He has no recollection of this meeting [UCPI0000008245] but is listed as attending it.

One of the topics on the agenda was the Miss World protests at the Albert Hall.

Peter Hain's upcoming court case is also mentioned – Jonathan has no recollection of this, or what kind of disruption might have been planned for demos outside the court.

We moved on to examine an incident that has already been mentioned a few times this week: the 'Star and Garter'

The English rugby team was staying at the Star and Garter hotel in Richmond, and the activists planned to blockade their coach in to the car-park and stop them from catching their flight to South Africa..

He does not remember 'Mike Scott' very well, but has read the evidence provided.
He remembers this undercover turning up (uninvited) at the planning meeting – which took place at Rodker's house in Fulham.

He strongly refutes the story that he was invited to it by Peter Hain's mother.

She had come to the UK having been active in South Africa, and was extremely security-conscious – there is no way that she would have invited some random stranger on the phone to attend a private political meeting.

Rosenhead explained that the campaigning about South Africa was a central, dominant, activity for progressive people at this time, in the same way that the war in Vietnam had been, and the situation in Palestine would be.

[MPS-526782] ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…

Rebekah read from page 9 of this report. Roles were discussed and decided at a planning meeting before the action. Rodker arranged for a skip to be delivered to the hotel car-park at 4pm that day.

“I think it was rather impressive – remember we were doing all this without mobile phones” said Rosenhead.

We saw some pictures of the hotel and the area around it. ucpi.org.uk/publications/e…

There was more talk about the events of the day

And more police reports referring to this incident, including [MPS-0737087]
ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…

Was it a 'melee'? Rebekah asked him.

“There was no fisticuffs, and there was nobody was trying to restrain us in any way” said Jonathan.

The report stated that “Rosenhead volunteered the use of three flares which he had with him” and then that “later, at the car park, he lit and threw a flare”.

Jonathan thinks this may be a case of mistaken identity
“I have no recollection of ever owning a flare in my life”
Rosenhead explained that he didn't even carry a lighter with him.

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
[MPS – 737109]
A meeting in May, after the first court appearance, attended by 13 people. We know that 'Mike Scott' was present; as were Rodker and Gurney.

They agreed to meet with “highly-esteemed human rights lawyer” Ben Birnberg, with a view to him representing them in this case, and to prepare some notes about what had happened.
[UCPI0000033628] is the covering letter that accompanied these notes
- see ucpi.org.uk/publications/e…

[MPS 737108] is a report of a second meeting of the defendants, held shortly before their second court appearance on 11th June It has been heavily redacted, so it's hard for Jonathan to understand it all.
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

He was asked about the 'Richmond Defence Fund' and the idea of approaching various group sto see if they would contribute to the arrestees' legal costs.

They discussed the possibility of using a Mackenzie Friend rather than a lawyer to represent them.

Rosenhead doesn't know why they all received different sentences - “I didn't do more than the others; it was the same offence”

The court case took place on 14th June 1972. HN298 ('Mike Scott') was found guilty and given a conditional discharge, as was Christabel Gurney.

Rosenhead has no idea why the case vs him and Ernest (and 5 others) was adjourned until a later date.

Rebekah told him that it looks (from these documents) as if these seven pushed for their cases to be heard in a higher court, and so were remanded until that next date.

These documents were referred to: ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…
[MPS-0526782]

And
ucpi.org.uk/publications/m… [MPS-0737126 ]

HN298 would have been privy to discussions between the defendants and their lawyer(s), and would have known what the defence case would be.

“All of that.. seemed to be a complete miscarriage of justice ,and speaks very badly for the police ethics of that time or of that place” says Rosenhead

Rosenhead noted that Ernest's charges were not dismissed (although his own were). Despite this, he received a smaller fine (of just £2) than Rosenhead did(£10).

Jonathan asked if he could say something.
He went on to speak about the CHIS Bill

It's worrying given the evidence that we have in this case, and there is a continuing police culture, if you like, of the abuse of power”