Thread by @copscampaign

NB: There is a different youtube link for those who want to see a moving transcript of the evidence we hear from 'HN354' this afternoon
#spycopsinquiry
#SpyCops

https://twitter.com/ucpinquiry/status/1392098430659530752

While you're waiting for the afternoon hearing to commence....

catch up with reactions from some of those who witnessed this morning's evidence at the Amba hotel....

facebook.com/groups/spycops

You can read HN354's 'consolidated' witness statement (the supplemented version that he submitted in this year, adding to his original statement made in November 2019) at:

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

(3)

Barr asked 'Miller' what Madeleine's attitude to the police was.

He doesn't remember, but said SWP members generally distrusted the police, knew they were more likely to be right-wing, and also to tap their telephones/ intercept their mail etc.
(4)

He explained that the police would often protect the fascists' demonstrations, so were seen as protecting them.
He said some people saw the police as the “repressive arm of the State”.
(5)

He said his relationship with Madeleine was “quite marginal” before it became sexual.

“I hardly knew her at all”.
(6)

Had he told her about his break-up story before they got together?
He began answering the question, then said this was the cover story he used with everyone.
(7)

He claims to be finding it hard to remember things, 40 years later.
(8)

He accepts that the sexual relationship with Madeleine must have taken place in late summer or early autumn.
(9)

He says he has no memory at all of the location – Madeleine told us it was a house party in Ilford. He says he has no reason to doubt/ challenge her account, as he can't remember “any details of that event”.
(10)

Might he have sat on a chair and pulled Madeleine onto his lap?
He responded that he thinks he'd be “fairly cautious about doing that”.
(11)

He said the party was a “happy place to be” - “gentle and good humoured” - he imagines that what happened could be characterised as “chatting and flirting”, yes.
(12)

He has no idea how much he drank - “I don't think a great deal” - “there wasn't a lot floating around – not a huge amount”.
(13)

He agrees that it is possible that he told Madeleine's friends that he would see her home, and agrees that he drove Madeleine to hers in his cover van.
(14)

He says they sat in the lounge at hers, before ending up in bed.

Barr asked if there was some 'sexual chemistry' between them?
“Yes that would be fair to say”
(15)

What exactly does he remember?

His account was of Madeleine inviting him to join her in her bed, in front of the others,
and he says he was surprised by this.
(16)

Barr asked:
Why didn't he use this opportunity – as a police officer on duty at the time – to say no?

“I think the prospect of not driving home and spending a pleasant evening continued and overcame my hesitation” was his response.
(17)

He agreed that he wanted sex, he stayed the night – he does not remember breakfast. He says they chatted in the morning. He can't remember what time he left her home.
(18)

He claims that his social contact with Madeleine didn't increase at all after this – he doesn't remember sitting at tables with her (as she says) – he pointed out that they were now in different branches of the SWP so didn't necessarily meet up every week.
(19)

He says they weren't a couple – they just “bumped into each other ,as you would, without arrangement” - and he didn't invite her to his cover flat.
(20)

Didn't that night together affect his feelings for her?
Not really, shrugs the officer. He says she was chatty and shared lots about herself.

He said obviously they spoke more than they had before (claiming that he barely knew her before that night) but not much.
(21)

He was asked if he went to bed with her for a second time?
“Not that I recall, no”

ucpi.org.uk/publications/e…

Again, we were shown an extract of a diary entry from 9th January 1980, supplied by a bus-driving colleague and confidante of Madeleine, 'J'
[UCPI0000034310]
(22)

This refers to 'Vince the Vampire' – describing Miller as a “Madeleine's lover” and his habit of always leaving her house before dawn.
(23)

He says that by January 1970, he had left his deployment.
(This is believed to have happened in October 1979)

He says he has no memory of sleeping with Madeleine on other occasions, He says he finds it hard to answer Barr's questions.
(24)

He agrees with Barr saying that he “didn't let a 'full-blown relationship develop” but still denies remembering sleeping with her again.
(25)

He says he doesn't think it was obvious that she was fond of him, and wanted more of a relationship with him.

(26)

He claims that she didn't actively contact him so he didn't realise that she was interested in him. He would see her at party functions, but says he didn't know what her feelings were.
(27)

He claims not to remember any more physical contact between them.
(28)

He doesn't remember telling Madeleine – or anyone else – that he had been fostered.
(29)

He made it clear that he had/ has a genuine interest in American West Coast music.
(30)

He remembers using the bad-breakup story as part of his legend, but has no recollection of any conversation with Madeleine where he shared more with her about this previous 'toxic' relationship and his feelings. He is not denying her account of this, just can't remember it.
(31)

He says he consistently told activists that he was not seeking a relationship.
(32)

Did he consider that his cover story – not wanting to be hurt again etc – might evoke 'motherly' feelings or sympathy amongst those he told it to?
No, it was his cover story and he stuck to it.
(33)

He refuted again the mention of him saying he's grown up in a childen's home of some kind – he says he never said that.
(34)

He doesn't know when he last saw Madeleine.
He remembers a leaving meal, but not the incident she's described.
(35)

Was she right about a second sexual relationship, with someone else?
Yes.
(36)

He said he has no memory of saying goodbye to Madeleine. He says they remained on friendly terms. He repeatedly said that he had no memory of many events in this time.
(37)

He now says that he is not seeking to place any blame on alcohol for his actions. He realised (by today) that he could have declined the offer of sex.
(38)

Did sleeping with Madeleine enhance his cover? He was asked.
“If you've been out in the field for some time and not had any relationships, people are inclined to wonder why” he suggested that people might have found his singleness suspicious.
(39)

He reckons that in his targets' opinions:
'Undercover police officers would use any means they could to get whatever they wanted to get”.
(40)

According to HN354, there was one man (not a member of the SWP) who expressed sexual interest in Vince – using this as some kind of excuse for having (heterosexual) encounters but going on to admit that this man would not have known about his liason with Madeleine/ others
(41)

Had I given it proper consideration then I would have voided the situation” says 'Vince'

He says he didn't really think at the time.

He now says, having reflected, “I made a mistake”.
(42)

He claims he didn't know about Madeleine's feelings until seeing/ hearing her testimony.

“I think I was wrong to allow it, and I think I've said that”.
(43)

Did he use any form of contraception?
No
Did he consider what would happen if he fathered a child while undercover?
Obviously not.
(44)

HN354 went off on an extraordinary rant about Madeleine and her comrades being feminists and therefore -in his view-
“If there was any need for protection she would have mentioned it.” (!)

Going on to say that Madeleine was “no shrinking violet”...
(45)

In the absence of any insistence... prompted Barr... “then everything was safe, in contraceptive terms” said HN354.
(46)

Does he understand why Madeleine feels betrayed?

No – saying that's “a very strong word for what happened”.

<trust me - we have stronger words we could use>
(47)

He says he never told anyone at the SDS about this incident.

He wanted to say that – with the benefit of hindsight and 'maturity' – now recognises that his behaviour was inappropriate and not professional.
(48)

He also said that he wanted to reassure M that she was not 'targetted' as such
(49)

Mitting then came on screen and said that Madeleine had impressed him as a “sincere and essentially truthful person”
- and asked if HN354 could provide any explanation for the differences in their accounts?
(50)

Is it a case of two people remembering things differently, or “something more than that”? Mitting muses.

<By the latter, does he mean “the spycop is lying”?>

HN354 remained defensive throughout this.
(51)

Can he tell the Chair more about what caused stress in his life?

HN354 said that he was interviewed for another policing role and found this pressurising.

He says his personal life was also under strain, and at times he may have been rude to other senior officers.
(52)

Barr moved on to ask about the other SWP member who 'Vince had a sexual relationship with.
He says he met her “right from the outset”, she was active but not as frequently as some others.
(53)

He said he never discussed her attitude towards the police, but assumes it was the same as other SWP members.
(54)

He says he got together with her at the very end of her deployment, after he'd announced his impending move to the States.

They drank together, he says he spent one night with her and then met at a few other “party events” including the leaving meal.
(55)

No, he doesn't think she would have had sex with him if she'd known he was an undercover officer.

He didn't give any thought to that at the ti,e, saying “it just seemed a happy way of finishing the evening”.

(56)

Again, he did not use contraception or consider the risk of pregnancy.

He says that in neither of these cases, was there any intention of 'targeting' these women for sex,or any instructions from the managers to do this.
(57)

He was asked about two other women who were deceived by 'Vince Miller' – he says these were women he met in the early days of his deployment – not involved in the SWP – but described one of them as a 'friend of a friend' (who he met in a pub).

(58)

“Not my greatest moment” he now says.

(59)

Again, there are discrepancies between the various statements Miller has supplied to this Inquiry and to the risk assessors.

He says all this “is lost in the mists of time for me”.
(60)

He isn't sure if this third woman would have had sex with him if she had known he was an undercover.

He didn't give this any thought at the time; he didn't use contraception; he didn't discuss this with his managers.

(61)

He says the circumstances around a fourth woman are “very similar” but cannot recall much else about it, other that this woman did not want to “continue the relationship” with Vince.

(62)

He says there were no links between these two women and the SWP.

He didn't mention them in his 'impact statement'.

His solicitor was sent a letter asking for details of all sexual relationships, but HN354 didn't come clean then either.

(63)

If he'd had stricter guidance from the SDS, does he think he would've avoided having these sexual encounters, or just ensured that he kept quiet about them?
(64)

He says he might have made “different decisions” if there was a “stricter regime”

- with more oversight, more rigorous questioning about his activities, more reinforcing of standards...

(65)

Barr pointed out that we heard earlier about official guidance 'falling on deaf ears' – so would any extra guidance have been treated seriously by the #spycops ?
(66)

Perhaps if each individual officer was given this guidance personally...?
ventured HN354.
(67)

He was asked if there were any qualities which would make someone unsuitable for this kind of undercover work?
(68)

Besides a “strong personality”... HN354 jumped back to saying
“I would not consider myself an active womaniser” before adding that there were some people who would be unsuitable for #spycops work....
(69)

Before we could hear what these were, the #spycopsinquiry stopped for another 15 minyte break.
(70)

HN3543 confirmed that the police had a special photography unit – he didn't take any photos himself while undercover.

(71)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

We were shown the first report [UCPI0000017753] attributed to 'Vince Miller'.
This includes details of a local 'anti-racialist' march organised by the Trades Council in February 1977, and attended by members of the SWP.

(72)

We can see it was 'uneventful' and headed by an MP and Bishop: why did the #spycops report on this?

He explained that they compiled all information they could in case it was useful in the future.
(73)

In his written statement, Vince told us that if they came across any Members of Parliament they were taught to put 'MP' by their name and not 'inquire' further – he says this was policy across Special Branch, and well known.
(74)

Asked to explain the phrase 'no further enquiries' he explained that this was added if it was decided that this person didn't warrant any more intrusion.

Otherwise, the #spycops would gather as much detail as they could about the person.
(75)

They would open a personal file on anyone suggested by the security services or senior officers.
(76)

We heard about the dispute at Grunwick
Miller says he went there once.

He says the SDS were expected to pass on everything, and leave the analysis to someone else.
(77)

He was asked what he knew of the organising around this dispute.
He said the units' job was to assess what policing would be required – saying it was not their job to prevent the activities of the demonstrators.
(78)

He said there was “an awful lot of pushing and shoving” when bus-loads of scabs arrived.

He said the SDS reports would feed into the Branch and might be used to assist the uniformed police. But has no idea if anything he contributed made it into these reports.
(79)

He was involved in a specific grouping with the SWP, the 'industrial group', alongside Pete Weardon
He claims that party members were 'trying to develop' him nto becoming a party activist
He says he was given this role –not asked first– and chose not to do anything about it
(80)

He says he didn't do very much at all, saying it was easy to be apathetic

Why the reticence about talking
about being involved in these industrial matters?

He says it wasn't the SDS's job to find out what was going inside factories, just to gather intelligence about demos
(81)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
The next report [UCPI0000013063] broke down the various activities of the party and these more specific campaigns/ issues...
He says he was not actively involved in the industrial group.
But he admits to reporting on their 'ambit'.
(82)

Talking about the clashes between far-right groups and anti-fascists:
He said they were mostly “violent scuffles”; it was a “continuous issue” and sometimes involved small groups of 2-3 people.

He agreed that running (away) was a good skill to have in those days.

(83)

He recalled the kind of violence – punching, kicking, rolling on the ground, nothing like knives but placards and tools might be used.

He mentioned that the right-wing were used to using violence.

(84)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000011059]
This report from an SWP meeting included the news that (according to an ex-NFer) the NF were tooling up and planning to use new (more violent) tactics in the future.
(85)

“This is the rhetoric that being sued rather than the practice” admitted Vince – only a small % of the activists were prepared to take part in street violence or initiate physical resistance to the fascists in certain circumstances.
(86)

There was talk of one incident featuring someone taking on a group of three right-wing “skinhead types”. He said it wouldn't have been reported to the police at at the time or involve any hospital treatment.
(87)

He doesn't remember going to the big anti-fascist demo in Wood Green that year
(88)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000011019]
Report from a meeting at the Oxford Arms pub in Deptford. He says he has no recollection of ever going to Deptford.
(89)

The Inquiry think it may have been produced by HN356, aka HN124, who used the cover name 'Bill Biggs'.
Read more at powerbase.info/index.php/Bill…

(90)

In para 4, we see that the Central Committee had proposed a new way of defending party members (and others) from the fascists' violence.

Vince doesn't remember what was done exactly, but commented.

(91)

He said that many people supported activities against the National Front: they weren't all SWP members (or supporters) or even particularly 'left-wing', just opposed to fascism and racism.
(92)

We moved on to the events around 13th August 1977 – the 'Battle of Lewisham' – and were shown a 'minute sheet' [MPS-0733365] circulated two days before the planned demo. ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…

(93)

This was a Special Branch report about the tactics the police expected left-wing counter-demonstrators to use when the NF marched in Lewisham that day.

Does he recognise any of this intelligence as coming from him?
Not straight away, but expects he would have contributed.
(94)

He suggests that he was asked to steward, and up late the night before, but does not remember the SWP squatting a house as a base in Clifton Rise.

(95)

According to the report, the SWP set up two 'protection squads' to keep an eye on both railway stations. These were to be made up of 6 people.

We are told that another such squad would be 'roving' – on the look-out for fascists/ sympathisers to attack in the streets.
(96)

There was talk of blocking the NF march with a vehicle in Amersham Road.

HN354 does remember that the NF had to be stopped from marching, but doesn't remember the details of the tactics discussed.
(97)

Did the demonstrators want to stop the march from going ahead because of the fascists' likely intimidation of the local community? Yes.

(98)

He recalls the kind of 'swaggering' and 'taunting' that took place, pointed out that nowadays the NF would not be allowed to act in this way – they had a 'colour party' carrying Union flags and drums.
(99)

He says he attended the stewards' meeting the night before.
There were probably a handful of others from his branch there - “half a dozen, I don't know”
(100)

He recounted the story about other SWP people stashing bricks along the route, in people's gardens so they weren't too obvious.

He was asked where exactly this happened, but wasn't clear about which streets.
(101)

He says he would have been trying to work out what numbers were expected from across London.

He doesn't think he took part in the ALCRAF rally in the morning. He thinks he joined the main demo later on.
(102)

He explained that 'following the march' would not have been possible - “it was chaos”.

The police had no protective gear, and in his words “the mounted branch took a complete hammering”.
(103)

He says that once the pretence of a real (and patriotic) march was over, members of the far-right came and got stuck in, violently.

He says he got separated from his comrades and made his way home alone at the end of the day.

(104)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Next we saw [MPS-0733367] - a report submitted by a Chief Inspector after that day.

(105)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

We learnt from this report [MPS-0733369] that a police debriefing took place after the 'Battle'. This was attended by at least 18 Special Branch officers
(106)

Vince says he was not one of them. It is likely that the SDS views would have been represented by one or two officers 'at a high level”.

(107)

He says the SDS were disappointed that their pre-intelligence had been ignored.
He believes this was the first time riot gear was donned by British police (on the mainland)

(108)

Further down in the report is a section entitled 'Hooliganism' – saying that a “large number of coloured hooligans were enjoying the chance to indulge themselves” while parts of the borough were left un-policed...

(109)

He remembers phoning up other #spycops after the event, to check they had got home ok.

A large number of them were present that day – infiltrating the SWP but also all these other groups who attended the demo.

(110)

He recalled that they were “amazed” that their recommendations (changing the route of the march) was “completely ignored” by the police.

(111)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
There was another meeting at the Rose and Crown in Walthamstow at the end of August.
(112)

According to the report [UCPI0000011196] - authored by HN354 – some members of the group were talking about arming themselves, with catapults and ball bearings, for the purposes of self-defence
(they were expecting a 'back-lash' from fascists, he says).
(113)

He does not remember anyone actually doing this, and dismisses it as another example of 'rhetoric' that wasn't necessarily backed up with real action.
(114)

He recalled the disruption the NF's electioneering in Ilford in 1979.

He remembered that these demos were “heavily policed” and thinks this prevented violence between left and right.
(115)

Next, he was asked about 23rd April 1979.

He does not recall going to the anti-fascist demo in Southall that day, which is where Blair Peach was killed by officers from the @metpoliceuk Special Patrol Group (SPG).

(116)

@metpoliceuk He didn't go to the funeral either.
He doesn't recall what was said in the SDS safe-house after this, but but says “there was obviously a great deal of discomfort” as “something had gone wrong”...

(117)

@metpoliceuk ...and - “perhaps more pertinently” - the #spycops were well aware of the likely reactions his killing would provoke across the capital.
(118)

@metpoliceuk The #spycopsinquiry took another 15 minute break at this point – we have been told that today's hearing is likely to go on till 6pm
(119)

@metpoliceuk We began again, looking at the issue of National Front attacks on people who were Jewish, or Black, or from any other minority.
(120)

@metpoliceuk The SWP organised to protect them, to remove racist graffiti when it appeared... we saw another item [UCPI0000013063] which mentioned this... as HN354 didn't remember this action happening...
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
(121)

@metpoliceuk He was asked if this would be replaced with Anti Nazi League (ANL) graffiti?

“I would have expected that” says HN354.

(122)

@metpoliceuk He said it would be “going a shade too far” to accuse the SWP of 'vigilantism'.

He made the point that the anti-fascists were very serious about the real need to prevent the rise of the far-right - “this wasn't random hooliganism”.

(123)

@metpoliceuk He went on to say that he wasn't sure how effective they were at opposing the “extreme right wing”.
(124)

@metpoliceuk ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Next we saw a report [UCPI0000017571] which mentioned the SWP restating their supports for the Provisional IRA's aims (self-determination for the Irish people, a united Ireland, etc) but not their “random bombing of working class people”.
(125)

@metpoliceuk Did this mean they didn't have a problem wth non-random IRA bombs? Barr asked him.

HN354 suspects they may not have been so critical of the IRA bombing military targets
(126)

@metpoliceuk What about attacking the British Army?
“It was inevitable, and it was acceptable” thought 'Miller'.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) were “despised” - he says the SWP members followed a 'party line' on these issues.
(127)

@metpoliceuk ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

The next report [UCPI0000011803] is dated 9th Feb 1978.
Eamon McCann and Tony Cliff spoke at this meeting at North London Polytechnic.

(128)

@metpoliceuk Vince was asked if the SWP would have agreed with Eamon's views?
Perhaps not unqualified support, but in principle, they supported the IRA.
He went on to say that some of the IRA's methods “did not sit well with the party”.

(129)

@metpoliceuk Tony Cliff is reported as saying that the Irish struggle should be treated as a class struggle rather than an anti-British one or just about Troops Out of Ireland, and condemned the killing of “British workers”.
(130)

@metpoliceuk As HN354 remembers, Tony Cliff was involved in founding the party, and was one of their “theoretical gurus”.
(131)

@metpoliceuk Being Treasurer of the Walthamstow branch gave Miller access to members' details, home addresses – it enabled him to build up a very accurate picture of the group, numbers and level of (financial etc) commitment – and an excuse to knock on their doors and talk to them.
(132)

@metpoliceuk He has said that he resigned due to “a period of disorder and ineffectiveness”. He says he cannot remember exactly what happened.
(133)

@metpoliceuk He says he was told by someone else that they'd have to resign because they were “forming a different view” - he says he still doesn't understand this dispute or the reasons for leaving the party.
(134)

@metpoliceuk He says he has no regrets about leaving this position in the SWP – he felt it was fine to “move on”.
(135)

@metpoliceuk “We were just harvesting whatever we could”

He talked more about how his role as Treasurer gave him a chance to find out more about members' living arrangements.
(136)

@metpoliceuk How did the management react to his “extensive” reporting?
It was what was expected of us, he said.
(137)

@metpoliceuk He sometimes chaired the branch's meeting, but claims to have tried to avoid doing this as much as he could – sometimes he did it badly on purpose.
(138)

@metpoliceuk He said the meetings weren't formal, with official 'points of order'. The Chair didn't have much control, over the group's agenda etc, as the party was centrally controlled.
(139)

@metpoliceuk He doesn't believe that he had much influence over the group, despite filling these formal roles in it. He doesn't think that he could have much effect on their views. He could barely ensure they paid their subs - “everything was very casual, to be honest”.
(140)

@metpoliceuk Did the SWP members believe that “Revolution was coming any time soon?”

“I think soon would be optimistic” said Vince.
(141)

@metpoliceuk He saw the SWP as trying to “build a working class movement in order to generate an attitude whereby a new society could be formed” and agreed that a general strike was an agreed method of doing so.
(142)

@metpoliceuk Barr mentioned the report of a speaker from Chile.
HN354 agreed that the SWP “positively discouraged acts of individual violence”. They did protest about food prices at Sainsburys.
(143)

@metpoliceuk He says "the anti-Jubilee thing was much more a national campaign” and one of the SWP's “more successful” ones

(144)

@metpoliceuk He confirmed that he would report details like individuals' bank account details.

He tried to justify this by saying that there must be a reason why Special Branch had identified these people as being 'of interest'.

(145)

@metpoliceuk Miller claimed that files weren't opened on children.

But went on to say that 15 and 16 year olds didn't count as children (in his head at least) and said if they were “sufficiently active” they were considered “worthy of more attention”.

(146)

@metpoliceuk He repeated what he'd said earlier about the system being very paper-based – a Registry File (RF) number would be assigned to people once a file had been opened on them.
(147)

@metpoliceuk He claims the police sometimes went back and reviewed these, and closed files on people that were no longer of interest.
(148)

@metpoliceuk In one of his reports, an “aggressive homosexual” is mentioned.

HN354 now says that he should have used “more delicate language” but cannot remember the person involved. He says he is not anti-homosexual.
(149)

@metpoliceuk This sort of terminology was common not just in the SDS but throughout wider society, he says.
(150)

@metpoliceuk Why did he report on Madeleine, and specifically on her wedding?
His excuse was that a file already existed on her – he was just updating it.
(151)

@metpoliceuk Would he report on an SWP sympathiser at a factory? Perhaps yes, their name would be entered in the report.
(152)

@metpoliceuk He says he never worked on the 'industrial section' on Special Branch, just knows that their office was on the 19th floor of New Scotland Yard.
(153)

@metpoliceuk He says he never met with the security service himself – he doubts any of the other deployed officers did – they worked on a need to know basis and their identities were secret.
(154)

@metpoliceuk He says that when he left the unit, he was asked to provide a more comprehensive document, but didn't get around to it.
(155)

@metpoliceuk powerbase.info/index.php/Alan…
He was asked about HN67 – who used the cover name 'Alan Bond' – but the Inquiry didn't have this nominal number on their sheet, so we moved on...

We are left wondering if 'Alan Bond' also fathered a child at some point...

(156)

@metpoliceuk Did he know about #spycops fathering children while undercover?

HN354 admitted that he had heard about Bob Lambert doing this later, but had no memories of anyone else doing this.
(157)

@metpoliceuk He was asked about Mike Ferguson – did he assume any positions of responsibilty in the groups he infiltrated?
Miller claims not even to know which groups Ferguson spied on

<which is unlikely – surely he saw the TV programme 'True Spies' by now??>
(158)

@metpoliceuk Was the support that he received from the SDS adequate?
No, but he admits that he didn't always accept (or seek) help from the management. And no external support was on offer.
(159)

@metpoliceuk He had 'a clash' with one of the managers, Mike Ferguson, so that may have complicated things.
(160)

@metpoliceuk After leaving the SDS unit, he left the Met's Special Branch for another policing job elsewhere, so didn't benefit from what he described as an 'automatic level of support' post-deployment.
(161)

@metpoliceuk What about later on?

Miller said he asked for assistance with one particular posting, but was told they couldn't help him with that.

(162)

@metpoliceuk The Inquiry then took a final break, to allow for lawyers to submit extra questions for this rather red-faced witness.
(163)

@metpoliceuk We returned to the virtual hearing for the last part of the day, at 6.15pm.

Barr confirmed that HN354's evidence has “elicited quite a degree of interest”, resulting in a list of follow-up questions for him.
(164)

@metpoliceuk He was asked more about his cover story – did he say anything that might have sown ideas in other #spycops minds about how to create their legends?
HN354 doesn't think he did.
(165)

@metpoliceuk Was he asked to help identify people who would be 'of interest to the police' on the day of the 'battle of Lewisham'?
(166)

@metpoliceuk He said they only reported on those who actually attended the demo, they wouldn't provide lists of people who were expected to attend

(unless they were the organiser, he added, in which case their name may have been recorded in advance).

(167)

@metpoliceuk Before the break, he was asked about HN67 - who used the name 'Alan Bond'.

He is a “family friend” and Vince knows that he recently informed his wife about the sexual relationship he had while undercover.
.
(168)

@metpoliceuk HN354 says he does not know more, and does not know if 'Alan' fathered a child back then.

<to be fair – he has no idea if he fathered a child himself back then>
(169)

@metpoliceuk He said that if there were any incidents of a false identity being 'tested', these would have been reported to the SDS office by phone.

He says he would be surprised if any written record had been kept of these incidents.
(170)

@metpoliceuk He was asked who he referred to as the “others” who would see his SDS reports.

He clarified that he meant the security service, and also the 'A8' department of the Branch (which dealt with public order)
(171)

@metpoliceuk Barr asked: “Were private companies part of the customer base at all ?

“Absolutely not” said HN354.
(172)

@metpoliceuk Can he tell us more about what he said earlier – that something had “gone wrong” at the demo in Southall?

He says he meant that if a public order situation ends in extreme violence and death then the police have failed in their duty to protect public safety.

(173)

@metpoliceuk He went on to claim that some police officers “feel very conscious of our responsibilities to the public”.

(174)

@metpoliceuk Were there any specific guidelines about reporting on justice campaigns – like the one that sprang up after Peach was killed?
He doesn't remember any.
(175)

@metpoliceuk With that, today's session ended. Tomorrow we start again at 10am, with summaries and then live evidence from 'HN126'
(176)