Thread by @copscampaign

The #spycopsinquiry is starting again
this afternoon's moving transcript will appear on in about ten minutes....

#spycops
(1)

Why did HN96 believe that the SWP were 'the most disruptive, from a public order perspective, that were currently active'?
(as he says in his witness statement)
(2)

Was this borne out by his experience of them at demos?

His statement only refers to a few “scuffles” with the police and violent exchanges with the far-right.
(3)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

We saw a report [UCPI0000013343] of a meeting of a group organising a Stop the Cuts demo in Hackney.
(4)

Was this typical of what he expected of the SWP at demos – that the group was largely peaceful in intention, but a few “extreme” elements in the crowd might have more trouble-making intentions?
(5)

He said the SWP “didn't go out looking for trouble, but trouble often followed them”

He contradicted this within one minute, talking about SWP members who were “not averse to getting involved in a punch up”.
(6)

He accuses the SWP of being “well-organised” even if they weren't very large.
(7)

“How else could you monitor extremists?”

He claimed it was far easier to monitor an organisation than individuals who weren't a “cohesive” group.
(8)

HN96 said he couldn't give specifics but insisted that the party contained “elements.. that did go looking for trouble”.
(9)

Did this mean that he considered there was always a risk of violence at SWP demos? Could he tell when trouble was planned?

He said he was “in the right place at the right time” so was able to keep an eye on the members.
(10)

He remembers that on the whole the SWP cooperated with the police when organising their demos.
(11)

He admitted that the SWP couldn't control, and nobody could accurately predict, how random demonstrators might act on the day.
(12)

Asked how his intelligence contributed to the success of policing these demos, he struggled to explain.

Repeating his 'small cog in a big wheel' trope and saying that the police received intelligence from many directions.

(13)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…'

This next report [UCPI0000017111], from January 1982, is about Red Action.

This group was made up mostly of former SWP members, who had left the party because they wanted to be more 'confrontational' in their resistance to far-right fascism.
(14)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000017144]
There is more about the split between Red Action and the SWP in this leaflet.
HN96 says he was not as closely involved with the SWP in January 1982.

(15)

Next, HN96 is asked about his positions of responsibility within the SWP

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
[UCPI000013376] seems to refer to him, 'Mike James'.
According to this report, 'Mike' was elected on to the Hackney district committee of the SWP in September 1979.
(16)

He says this is not something he wanted “I didn't have a lot of choice” - it entailed helping organise sales of the Socialist Worker paper.

In his statement he said he was worried that this role would add to him “prominence” and so was reluctant to do it.
(17)

He was asked about voting.

He was asked about this committee and his role in decision-making.

He said they didn't make the major decisions – “it was pretty low level” - at district committee meetings.

(18)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
{UCPI0000013803]
According to this report there were approx 90-100 members of the SWP in Hackney.
'Mike James' is listed as one the six people on the district committee...
(19)

– he is described as the party's “District Book Organiser” but can't assist us with exactly what this role entailed

(20)

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000016207]
Why is the election of this fire-fighter (and active Fire Brigades Union rep) reported on?

HN96 claims this wasn't his report.
(21)

@fbunational @LondonFBU

@fbunational @LondonFBU [UCPI0000013468]
Clapton Branch meeting in October 1979 – this was chaired by 'Mike James'.

Was he not concerned by this stage that he was reaching a level of “prominence” that might end up compromising his cover in some way?
(22)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Oh no. He claims that the info he gathered wasn't depend on the level of responsibility he had, and that he tried to do jobs that would minimise demands on him.
(23)

@fbunational @LondonFBU A picket was planned outside Stoke Newington Police Station on the eve of the first inquest into the death of Blair Peach, in October 1979.

Peach was killed by the police in Southall, in April of that year.
(24)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Did he go to the demo where Peach was killed?
No.

Did he ever meet Celia Stubbs? (who was also an SWP member in East London)
No.
(25)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Does he recall attending any meetings at the #spycops safe-houses after this death, at the end of April? Or any discussion about this case at all?
No.
(26)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000021297] is about a leaflet made by the Friends of Blair Peach Committee.
(27)

@fbunational @LondonFBU There is mention of criticism directed at the SWP's Central Committee by some of Blair's friends, including the named person who produced this leaflet, having witnessed the injuries suffered by Blair.

(28)

@fbunational @LondonFBU HN96 says this is not his report, and he suspects it may have been submitted by another of the #spycops – someone who knew this person, he suggests.

He claims his recollection is not good, but knows about this death. “It was splashed all over the papers at the time”.
(29)

@fbunational @LondonFBU He says he had no involvement at all in the campaign that followed his death; he says he did not attend the funeral with the other SWP members.

(30)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000013505]
Why was it considered necessary to record the names of the people who took part in this Blair Peach protest picket?

(31)

@fbunational @LondonFBU He said all this info was collected and fed into a system that was “non-judgemental”

Why did they report on who attended the protest?
They were probably SWP members” said HN96.

(32)

@fbunational @LondonFBU “it would be remiss of me not to have identified them”
just because they hadn't done anything yet.

They could well come to the attention of the police again in future, so best to gather their details now... seemed to be his attitude

(33)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Six months later came this report {UCPI0000013935] about a picket outside Stokey cop-shop on the first anniversary of Peach's horrific killing.
(34)

@fbunational @LondonFBU He says the SWP-ers he encountered were genuine in their politics and their beliefs of protest but this wasn't about them, this was about monitoring the entire organisation.

(35)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI000014149]
We heard about the Friends of Blair Peach's efforts to set up a new national network of justice campaigns.
(36)

@fbunational @LondonFBU How was this helpful for the police?
HN96 rambled for a long time without saying much

Counsel asked: did the police try to find out more about this campaign group, who were campaigning about the police's own brutality

<and their attempts to cover up their wrong-doing>

(37)

@fbunational @LondonFBU #spycops just gathered information; it was other people who decided what went in the final reports
(38)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…
MPS-0730184

From 1980 onwards, 'Mike James' got more involved with the Troops Out Movement (TOM). They were also planning to support/ attend demos about Blair Peach.
(39)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Does he remember those anniversaries as significant?
He says “the campaign was a focus for a long time”
(40)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
[UCPI0000013868]
This event featured six major speakers, including MPs. It was chaired by Peter Hain.
HN96 can't recall attending it
(41)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
According to this report [UCPI0000016192] an Anti Apartheid Movement social took place at Hackney Trades & Social Club. HN96 said he often went to this venue, as part of maintaining his general cover identity.
(42)

@fbunational @LondonFBU What can you see in this that might have been of potential interest to the police?
There was the longest pause of the day, then some more bluster....

(43)

@fbunational @LondonFBU He said that the #spycops didn't just help with public order; they provided this kind of info as well.

He went on to say that the South African authorities may have been very interested in these draft dodgers who were said to be 'sheltered' by AAM campaigners in London.

(44)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

There is a report [UCPI0000018700] about an SWP member who acted a as a steward for a Roach Family Support Campaign demo.

Why did the SDS spy on family justice campaigns?

“They might come to light in future” he recycled this line.
(45)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Why was there a concern that TOM might provide support to Irish republican groups that committed acts of terrorism?

He said that if a group supported the aims of the republicans, they might end up providing them with more practical/ logistical support in future.
(46)

@fbunational @LondonFBU The police never looked at organisations because they were not democratic – that wasn't their concern.
But they did want to stop “extremists” from somehow “abusing their rights” to protest, says HN96
(47)

@fbunational @LondonFBU He moved away from being so involved in the SWP but continued to see his SWP comrades in social settings.
(48)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Does he remember taking part in a TOM sit-in at the Trades Union Congress headquarters? This is described in his witness statement.

Yes

(49)

@fbunational @LondonFBU Does he consider his actions on that day lawful?
He pointed out that they were trespassing, but trespass was not a criminal offence.

“I didn't see it as breaking the law” - he saw it as a protest that he could take part in, in his undercover identity.
(50)

@fbunational @LondonFBU He says he thinks the TUC officials were sympathetic to their cause (the Irish hunger strikers); he was not arrested.
(51)

@fbunational @LondonFBU ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Dated Sept 1982, [UCPI0000018643] this next report concerns a public meeting at the Abeng centre in Brixton, called in protest at the appointment of Kenneth Numan as the head of the @metpolice

(52)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He accepted the role of Membership and Affiliation Secretary of the TOM.

He says his branch of TOM, in East London, was “probably the most prominent in the country”, and “very active”

(53)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He sought to downplay the significance of his role, and the info he was able to gather as a direct result, instead going on about how he didn't get involved in running anything or making big decisions.

(54)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice The next report shows that 'Mike James' occupied one of just nine places on TOM;s national steering committee. He claims not to remember this at all.

(55)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He says he would have dealt with membership enquiries, new people, and repeated that it didn't “assist” him in his mission.
(56)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000018324]

This illustrates the high level of intelligence #spycops like 'Mike' were sent out to collect.

(57)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
[UCPI0000018365]
HN96 repeated what he'd just said about TOM's Hackney branch being especially active.

(58)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000015779]
TOM held an annual delegate conference, and this report is of the 1982 one. HN96 remembers going to Manchester for it.

(59)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice The steering committee is described, its turnover is high enough to be of concern – so some of the work this committee used to do is spread more widely across the organisation.

He recalls that his branch took on the committee roles.
(60)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He repeatedly denies that he had anything to do with affiliations and the different branches that made up the TOM nationally.

(61)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice "They trusted me to do certain things but I didn't have their confidence" recalls HN96.

“I didn't have a close relationship with any of them, really"

(62)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

We are shown a report [UCPI0000018542] made by 'Mike James' – listing all of the different groups and organisations who were affiliated to the TOM in 1982.
He claims not to remember this.
(63)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice How could he possibly just “go along with the group” when he was its longest-serving member of the committee?
..he was asked

I was just very very good at my job” replied the #spycop
(64)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

[UCPI0000018026]
A report from a meeting of that organising committee, in April 1982

(65)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He was asked what the purpose was in placing an undercover officer in a group planning a public demonstration, when that committee was already engaged with the local police and there was no risk of disorder?

He didn't have a good answer for this

(66)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice [UCPI0000018042]
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

(67)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice When he left his deployment, HN96 was able to contribute to this comprehensive report about the TOM [UCPI0000018713]

ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
(68)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He was asked for his opinion of TOM. He remembers saying that he believed there were some people associated with the group whose theoretical support for the Irish Republican cause might lead to them providing more practical support in future..

(69)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He says the Republican movement “could and would make use of any support they could get”

(70)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Finally, HN96 was asked about his contemporaries amongst the #spycops.
(71)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice 'Mike' is informed of his erstwhile colleague HN354 ( cover name 'Vince Miller') admitting to sexual relationships whilst undercover, including with 'Madeleine', whose evidence was heard this week.

(72)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He denies any knowledge of this, even though their deployments in the SDS overlapped.

He says he has only been to one reunion event since leaving the #spycops unit.

(73)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Counsel announces that he's not going to ask about HN21 but is going to ask about HN155, cover name 'Phil Cooper'

HN96 says they weren't friends but were both part of the 'squad'.

(74)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice There were no further questions for HN96. He was thanked for his patience by the Chair.

Next we will hear from one of two risk assessors, David Reid.

(75)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Mitting joked about this being the 'graveyard slot' and Rebecca Smith appeared on screen to ask David Reid some questions.
(76)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He provided the Inquiry with a witness statement, which you can now download from: ucpi.org.uk/?post_type=pub…

His notes are not in the bundle, but are numbered [MPS/739805] and [MPS/746269]

(77)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid was employed by the @metpolice from November 2016 to May 2018. He was the 'lead risk assessor' for 8 of the 49 risk assessments that have been carried out, and a 'peer reviewer' for another 8.

(78)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice These risk assessments were done as an “objective assessment of the creation or increase to risk” that could be caused by these former #spycops giving evidence to the #spycopsinquiry

(79)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice His job was to provide an accurate, comprehensive and objective appraisal, with the time and resources available.

There wasn't always a second risk assessor to accompany the 'lead' on visits to officers' homes, or a peer reviewer, at the start of this process.
(80)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice “A second pair of ears is always good” he explained.
“it's not just a matter of filling out a box” he went on to explain the importance of thinking and listening and asking good follow-up questions in order to elicit as much info as possible.

(81)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He preferred to have a colleague present but this wasn't always feasible.
(82)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Did they use a template? Yes, one for the interview (which morphed/ improved over time) and another for the risk assessment itself. He explained more about the procedure that he would follow.
(83)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice The Dept of Legal Services agreed that these would be conducted like 'witness interviews' rather than 'suspect witnesses'.
(84)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He was not there to investigate criminal offences, they weren't under caution or at a police station. They could have a lawyer present, but it was done in an informal way.

(85)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He said that they had to emphasise to everyone that their job was not about making (moral) judgement; it was purely about assessing risk.

(86)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice What did he do if the officer disagreed with what he's written? He'd correct it if he thought this was necessary (to avoid misleading) but keep a note of someone changing their answer from their original one.
(87)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He would make notes as they went – using his own shorthand – and write more notes at the end – he tried to keep eye contact with the interviewers.

(88)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice There was some discussion about the options of verbatim notes vs audio-recording vs other ways of making notes.
He says he would maybe do it differently next time, but is satisfied that they captured the meaning of what was said to them.

(89)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He clearly remembers not doing any interviews unless he had time immediately afterwards to write up his notes and assessment while it was still fresh in his head.

He made the point of saying this was certainly the case with HN155.

(90)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice We moved on to discuss the 'Relationships entered into' section, Reid wanted to make it clear that his job was different to the role of the Inquiry.

He was only looking at this subject in the context of risk.

(91)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He wanted to assess if there were any factors which might increase the level of risk, so had to understand why these relationships had happened.

(92)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He didn't do this in the way that a police officer might investigate an alleged sexual assault, for example. He tried to stick to questions to do with risk, not the questions that Operation Herne or this Inquiry might ask.
(93)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He said they weren't just concerned with sexual relationships – they also tried to assess the risk of other close/ intimate relationships.

(94)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He said the vast majority of officers he met denied having any physical relationships (at any level) and he didn't probe much further – he accepted what they told him.

(95)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He was aware that he wouldn't see any 'evidence' from the 70s (or whenever) and that he relied on the officers as a source of info.

The more they gave him, the more accurate his eventual risk assessment would be, he told them.

(96)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He also made it clear that he wasn't on “their side” as such

(97)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He says that HN155 was very angry when he first visited him at home.

(98)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Initial interviews were followed up with a 'fact check' session.

He would have typed up his assessment, and ask the interviewee to check this draft purely for factual inaccuracies.
Not the conclusion or eventual recommendations.

(99)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/g…

We were shown [UCPI0000034397] – a 'gist' of the issues that had arisen during the risk assessment process carried out with 'Tranche 1' SDS officers

<Tranche 1 covers the period from 1968-1982>

(100)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid was present with a colleague (Graham Walker) at the interview with HN347 in May 2017, but didn't write the report that was produced.

(101)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice HN347 complained that it was “riddled with inaccuracies” incl the details of how he'd created his cover identity and whether or not he'd stolen a dead child's identity.
(102)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid explained that they tried to type up their notes as soon as possible after each interview.

(103)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He was the lead assessor fro HN155. He was accompanied by a colleague, Dave Lockie, and the first interview with HN155 lasted 3-4 hours.
(104)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He was “agitated and stressed” recalls Reid. They tried to create a calmer atmosphere and build up some rapport with him.
(105)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice What were his observations of HN155? Did he display any difficulty with listening to you and then responding?
(106)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid explained that they would offer regular breaks.
If interviews got unsafe or someone was really struggling with the process (which sometimes happens in this work) the interviewers could end the interview.

They didn't feel this was necessary in HN155's case.
(107)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice We saw an example on screen: [MPS/746346]
It is very redacted so none of us can see much of the document.

David Reid says he can't answer many questions about it, but is clear that he wrote some of his notes while HN155 was talking.

(109)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Did he recall the kind of questions he'd have started with when interviewing HN155?

The same as he usually did.
(110)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid was asked how HN155 reacted to the mention of sexual or intimate relationships?

He recalls HN155 saying he lived an “alternative lifestyle or life”.

111)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Mitting appeared to ask if Reid could be shown an unredacted copy of his handwritten notes.
(112)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid deciphered his own handwriting:
“Lives a full alternative life in all aspects but cannot recall specifics.
No long or medium term relationships
+ there are groupies who would want to spend the night with a <SWP> Central Committee member...."

(113)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice "...Not a member but close to it, but not going to disclose further. Would only give 1st name.
Cannot recall their names. 2 or 3 + ? women.
Dalliances not all ended in full sex. Probably drinking.
Never purposefully gave surname but not volunteered.”
(114)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He recalled that HN155 was uncomfortable, and didn't want to answer questions, when it came to this topic.

He says he probed,and asked more questions to find out more
(115)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He originally said there were two or three 'dalliances' and then said “well it could have been more” - HN155 wanted to make it clear that he described these as social encounters, not a tool to “gain a tactical advantage” or help him access intelligence about the SWP.

(116)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He also made the point that these liasons didn't always end in 'full sex' – Reid explained that he deliberately didn't ask the obvious question (if some of them therefore had).

(117)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He spoke about how interviewees often seemed to want advice, or a 'steer', from the interviewers, but he couldn't give them this.

(118)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

We saw [MPS-0747546] – HN155's supplemented' witness statement

In this HN155 claims that he was misunderstood by the risk assessors.

(119)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice HN155 states that he was talking about other people when he talked to them about 'liasons'.

(120)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Could he have been talking about hypothetical situations?
He was talking about himself.

Could he have been talking about another undercover officer? offered Smith
No – he was speaking about himself.

(121)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Reid doubts that HN155 had been telling them about things that were entirely imaginary, and says he wasn't qualified to assess imaginations.

(122)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice But he is convinced that HN155 had certainly had some kind of sexual encounters whilst undercover – it is entirely possible that these were with women with no direct links to the groups he was spying on though.

(123)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice HN155 invited the risk assessors to the pub afterwards.
(124)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice The risk assessors were working to deadlines, so as soon as they'd typed it up Reid went to deliver it in person and hold the agreed 'fact check' session with him. This was on a Saturday – they arranged to meet at a pub near HN155's home.
(125)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice [MPS/746269]

We are told that HN155 tried to amend this – and remove 8 words from the end of the highlighted section:
“and that the encounters would have followed drink”

(126)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He wanted to change it so it didn't sound like he was taking advantage of drunk women

– Reid agreed with this and accepted that it wasn't well-written and gave the wrong impression of what had taken place.

(127)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice We were also shown [UCPI0000034389] – also not in the bundle provided – which is an extract from the final risk assessment for HN155.
It shows the risk assessors' conclusions.

(128)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice How did he draw his 'conclusions'? Reid was asked.

“these were social encounters during his deployment, but not entered into because of his deployment”.

(129)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Counsel also read from HN155's witness statement – where he says these encounters were “social, informal and personal, but certainly not sexual”.

(130)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Finally, she asked Reid if HN155 had a full and proper opportunity to look over the final document? Yes, he was, Reid confirmed.

(131)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice There was then a short break, to allow for questions to be submitted for David Reid.
After this we are due to hear (more briefly) from the second risk assessor who had dealings with HN155.

<His name is Brian Lockie - I may have got it wrong earlier.>

(132)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Only one extra question for Reid:
The lawyers who attended some of the risk assessment interviews – were any of them instructed by the 'Designated Lawyers'?
No.
(133)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Brian Lockie also supplied a statement to this Inquiry, in January 2021.
ucpi.org.uk/publications/f…

(134)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He confirmed that he was employed by the @metpolice for approx one year, between Feb 2017-Feb 2018. During this time he was the 'lead assessor' for 10 of the 49 done,and a 'peer reviewer' in another 3? Yes. And he was present when HN155 was assessed? Yes.

(135)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He explained what he meant by the phrase “no bias either way” - he says that this was an opportunity for these officers to tell them whatever they wanted to.

(136)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice These interviews were informal, there was no tape recorder – although Lockie says he doesn't think recording it would have worked so well.

(137)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He explained that the assessors used a pro-forma during the interview – after it, they would go back and try to corroborate what they were told and compile a draft risk assessment.

This was taken back to the interviewee for fact-checking.
(138)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He often worked in a team of two.
He said they were a second pair of ears and eyes.
It's just nice to have someone else there.
As a general rule, he wouldn't take notes himself during the interview if he was there in the second assessor role.
(139)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He didn't always know exactly what his colleagues had written. If there was something either of then was unclear about, they would discuss it.

(140)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He accepted that sometimes errors could occur, and that nobody's infallible, but thinks their process meant they tended to get it accurate enough.

(141)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice We looked back at HN340's witness statement. He complains that he's been shown a report suggesting that his flat was in Golders Green – when it fact it wasn't.

(142)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Brian Lockie says that he thinks he recorded this as 'North London' and has had no idea when the mention of Golders Green crept in, or where this originated

(143)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Lockie had no involvement in the impact assessment process

(144)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Next we heard that HN80 has also complained about the accuracy of the risk assessment

Lockie says he spent 9-10 hours with this individual and “he went through every line of my risk ass and fact-checked it”

(145)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice HN126 says that his risk assessment is incorrect because it says he was a key organiser at Grunwick, which he wasn't, having only just been deployed at that time.

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Lockie says that these “interview notes are notes, that sometimes over-run the questions, so there is a little bit of flex”.
(147)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He says he remembers the Grunwick case, despite these interviews being done a few years ago - - because he went back and checked his notes, and this officer did say that he'd been involved in policing the Grunwick dispute.
(148)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He went with David Reid to interview HN155 – he would prefer not to describe him as 'angry' but says he was 'agitated' and 'not welcoming'.

He says the assessors had to spend some time building a better rapport with HN155.

(149)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Did Lockie get the impression that HN155 was engaged with the process and the questions? Yes.

Lockie explained that he had experience of other interviews being stopped or paused (for a break) if the interviewee was having problems, but this wasn't the case with HN155.

(150)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice David Reid led on the questions, but Brian sometimes contributed. He didn't just sit there in silence. The two assessors would discuss what they thought was said after the interview was completed.

(151)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Lockie says he didn't think that Reid missed or misunderstood anything in the interview.
(152)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Asked how they approached the subject of relationships, Lockie said

He sort of flirted round the idea – Lockie says he got the feeling that HN155 was looking to the risk assessors for some kind of guidance about what to say (which they couldn't give him)

(153)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice “He never admitted to the specifics”

“He said the phrase 'groupies'

and he used the word 'dalliances, which is a really unusual word” said Lockie, adding that he said he took this to mean short-term casual relationships.
(154)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice This wasn't a criminal process – the assessors weren't there ti prove or disprove what had happened – so they didn't push him to answer more questions about any specifics.

(155)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He says they wouldn't have prompted him on the subject of sexual relationships as that wasn't part of their job.

(156)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice How did the risk assessors reach the conclusions they did, when the interviewee had displayed such reluctance and failed to provide more explanation?

(157)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Is there any chance that he just went along with what was being suggested?

Not a chance – Lockie recalls that HN155 was “quite strong-willed” and doubts he'd have taken suggestions from them.

(158)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice HN155 says in his written statement that he was “quite clear” that he did not engage in sexual relationships at all when he was undercover.

(159)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Lockie had the feeling that HN155 was talking about himself rather than about someone else or a totally hypothetical situation.

Could he have been spinning a story, and “giving himself a status that wasn't true? asked Counsel.

(160)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Lockie and Reid read through the draft assessment and discussed it.

They wanted to be sure that they both agreed on what HN155 had communicated to them.

Why uncertain? Because HN155 had “left it up in the air”.
(161)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice He went on to explain that there was no benefit to him or Reid whether an assessment said one thing or another – they wouldn't have 'dug their heels in' if the officer had contradicted anything.
(162)

@fbunational @LondonFBU @MetPolice Thankfully, there were no further questions for Brian Lockie, so the #spycopsinquiry came to an end after this....