Thread by @copscampaign

Next, he was asked about the Registry Files he earlier admitted to taking along to the SDS safe house, e.g. ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
Was this because the managers wanted to target those individuals or because the #spycops officers asked for info about them?
The managers

He went on to explain that these requests for info were usually accompanied by notes (often from other parts of Special Branch) so he would put the notes in the bags too and take them to the #spycops

Barr: 'SP' and 'C' appear on the page – we've been told these are security classifications, and stand for Secret Pink and Confidential. Did you add these markings?

Smith: We would stamp them “secret” straight away before they left the office.

He said they didn't use “confidential” because of their source.

Barr: So those markings were done by someone else in SB? Yes

Other markings used included “PA” = put away
"RBF" = bring back in 2 yrs
SP was a common grading used throughout the Branch.

Smith tells us that the exact grading of each doc would be decided by others in the wider Branch, at Chief Inspector level. The SDS just put 'secret'

Does he recall a black folder used by the SDS?
No – he claims he first heard of it many years later, either at the very end of his service or at a reunion event afterwards

The term “weary” - did he ever hear this used to refer to those targeted by the #spycops ?

Smith: No

He earlier mentioned someone withdrawn from a deployment who didn't have proper ID – confirmed this was not one of the three withdrawn in January 1973, it was someone else.

References to the link between the book/ film Day of the Jackal and the tactic used to create fake identities – he's not sure about this.

Asked about the Young Liberals, he clarified that this group weren't seen as a problem – repeated the excuse he gave earlier about them being used as a 'stepping stone' by the #spycops and the line about them being “a rank and file 'fly on the wall' member” of a group.

Why was the SDS interested in the Anti-Apartheid Movement?
Was this because of the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign?

He talked about the activists sitting in the road and obstructing traffic (not a police officer, which would have been more serious).

There weren't any more questions for David Smith, so the #spycopsinquiry 'rose' again for a short break - we'll be returning to hear from Roy Creamer

Creamer's second witness statement can now be downloaded from
ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
He is also known as HN3093

#spycops

Mitting makes a comment about being just 7 years old when Creamer joined the @metpolice (in 1954)

@MetPolice He moved to Special Branch in 1958, and the SDS when it began, in 1968. He spent a long time in C Squad. This Squad 'looked after' the far-left – for a while B Squad did this while C Squad continued to 'look after' the Communists.

@MetPolice How deep a knowledge of the far left did he develop before joining the SDS?
“Not a lot” he admitted.

@MetPolice He explained that in the early days the focus was very much on the Communists – the other groups were seen as small and less significant.

@MetPolice Stuart Christie is said to have called Creamer “the Yard's dialectician of dissent”.

According to him “anarchists would openly boast that they would assassinate leaders if they felt like it”

@MetPolice But he described those he encountered as "mischievous" - unlikely to either throw a bomb or whatever it is that anarchists might be up to”

@MetPolice He said that he often visited Albert Meltzer in his shop by Red Lion Square - “I really got on with” this “very courteous”, “ex-wrestler, big man” - and bought books.

@MetPolice He met Christie there, and says they had an “uneasy relationship”. Sometimes Christie would see him in attendance at meetings and point him out, but Creamer didn't feel threatened about this.

@MetPolice He figured that an anarchist was more likely to be considered a trouble-maker by some of those lefties than he, a policeman, would (!)

@MetPolice Meltzer and Christie didn't talk about themselves to Creamer. However they shared their opinions of other people who were politically active – eg the Maoist groups.

@MetPolice In those days, if they were sent to attend a political meeting and found it was being held in a private house, they could go back to the Yard and not attend it.

The official line was not to go in, “and most of us knew that”.
He says it was rarely an issue.

@MetPolice He says in those days the emphasis was on doing the job in a discreet way, not to cause waves.

@MetPolice He said Trotskyism was complex so he couldn't be an expert straight away.

He was interested in Anarchism so learnt a lot about them.

@MetPolice What was his view of Freedom Press?
Creamer said he was “quite relaxed about them”.
“They were not, in my view, dangerous anarchists, or likely to assassinate anyone”.

@MetPolice He went on to describe them as “ friends who got together in a belief there should be more freedom for everybody to live

The anarchists and communists were traditionally enemies – dating back to the Spanish Civil War and events in Russian history.

@MetPolice He said their risk to public order was “difficult to assess”.

He didn't think they were “a force to be reckoned with” – as they were “small in stature”, intelligent and academic – more importantly they didn't want to fight anyone.

@MetPolice Not a waste of time to talk to them but they were clearly not a public order problem.

Freedom Press and the Federation of Anarchists were more likely to jeer.

@MetPolice Other anarchists differed.

Anarchists were generally disobedient – they wouldn't “take discipline from the organisers or the police or whatever”

It “wasn't in their nature to support or enhance” other groups

@MetPolice Who did he consider to be “too intellectual”?

He shared his opinion about the best way to approach a left-wing group would be as a worker.

Infiltrating the anarchists was a bit of a waste of time as they "sat on the bench" in football terms

@MetPolice Who did he consider to be “too intellectual”?

He likened IMG and IS to Mayfair and Park Lane in the game of Monopoly (!) going on to explain that he meant they were difficult to infiltrate but offered more riches to those who were successful.

@MetPolice Continuing with this weird analogy...
Other left-wing groups were more like Old Kent Road, and were more likely to receive their instructions from elsewhere.

@MetPolice Were the IMG involved in public order problems?
More than other groups – he compared them with “Gerry Healy's lot” (the WRP) who he says were very disciplined

@MetPolice The IMG weren't necessarily intent on causing violence but they weren't going to discipline anyone to stop it. #

They weren't the type of people who wanted to act as marshals and police other activists' behaviour.

@MetPolice They didn't care about the Labour Party's problems but more about the movement's international reputation, he says. They “didn't want to rein in on any disorder or rows or you know fights with the police or anything like that”

@MetPolice A question about IS – which in the late 70s had become the SWP, and has been described as being very easy to join – does Creamer agree with this or not?
What does he think it was like in the 60s?
True for the ordinary citizen, but different (and harder) for a police officer

@MetPolice "The Socialist Labour League was not liked” by other left wing groups, who didn't like Gerry Nealy's style of discipline. It would have been difficult (and dangerous) to infiltrate that group, and be seen in public selling their paper, Creamer thought.

@MetPolice He says Nealy drew the support he had from trade unions, but suggested it wasn't much.

@MetPolice Did the Maoists constitute a public order threat?
Creamer wrote a report about Manchanda once.

He says that according to the anarchists, they “weren't sponsored by the Chinese embassy or anything like that”

@MetPolice He prepared assessments about the Maoists, having concluded that they were noisy but not dangerous.

@MetPolice What experience did he have of the Anti Apartheid Movement? None

@MetPolice What about the far right?
He says in the early days they were always sent to those meetings so they could see what they were like (as part of their SB training)

@MetPolice They used to watch Mosely at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, but the right's public support was “negligible”, their reputation had suffered because of the War.

Any demonstrations they had in that era (the 50s/60s) were pretty small.

@MetPolice He went on to talk about how it became "inevitable that the police would have to increase their surveillance of left wing groups.

@MetPolice Only a few officers were being tasked with assessing demonstrations in those days.
He says the officers didn't want to do it, and complained that they couldn't predict what might happen in the future.

@MetPolice Creamer recalls meeting with Gilbert - he felt he was being given a mission to get more advance info about forthcoming demos for A8

@MetPolice He was on B Squad then - says he was brought back from port, having been away from London for 3 years - acting as Gilbert's temporary clerk.

@MetPolice Barrr: was James Callaghan the Home Secretary at that time?

Was this demo outside Jim Callaghan's house or another Minister's?
Another Minister – a “literary man” with shiny hair, Creamer recalls.

@MetPolice What the Inquiry's getting at:

Were the Branch's 'traditional methods' sufficient to gather intelligence for the Security Services before the formation of the SDS in 1968?

@MetPolice "I was only a Sergeant" says Creamer.
Claiming he didn't know exactly what the Security Services wanted from Special Branch in those days, beyond identifying individuals

@MetPolice He recalls a dispute within the Branch about writing "He is known to me" on reports.

He thinks there may have been some connection to people being arrested for espionage during the War

@MetPolice Special Branch were "obliged to answer" he says.

Barr: so was there a tension between doing his duty as a police officer and spying on people who were not a threat to law and order?

@MetPolice After this, the #spycopsinquiry took a 10 minute break.

Mitting thinks the Minister's name might have been Roy Jenkins, and Creamer agrees.

@MetPolice In his Witness Statement, 'Uniform' are said to have complained about not getting enough intelligence from Special Branch

Creamer claimed he was “too much of a minion” for A8 to talk to him about such matters

@MetPolice But it wasn't the Chief Superintendents' fault that they hadn't successfully predicted what the demos in 1968 would be like.
"Rowdy" and "caused police injuries” said Creamer.

@MetPolice He suggested that Special Branch was too bland, and it would be safer to expect higher numbers that publicised/ expected by the organisers, in case the demo got “lively and horrendously vicious”.

If SB got it right, it would improve their relationship with A8.

@MetPolice How did he come to join the SDS?
He was working on the desk that dealt with Trotskyists.

He explained that Conrad Dixon was looking for people “who he knew were enthusiastic about doing the work” and “sensed that I had a lot to offer” - he wasn't given a choice.

@MetPolice What was his role in the Squad?
He says that he refused to go undercover, he preferred to go about openly, and knew that he “wouldn't get away with it” as he's be recognised by Christie and others.

@MetPolice According to Creamer, “it was an adventure” for Dixon. He felt that his contribution was to restrain him from doing anything really stupid”.

@MetPolice He offered to go along to meetings like those held at Conway Hall, help with the reports, look after the office, and offer his knowledge to the work of this new unit.

@MetPolice We began looking at documents with Creamer's name on them, e.g.
0739495
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Creamer says this was actually produced by one of the deployed #spycops not him
But the registry people often put his name on SDS reports.

@MetPolice He wished he'd put “trustworthy source” rather than “reliable source” on his so he could tell them apart in future.

@MetPolice Barr pointed out that many of the reports the Inquiry has seen from this era are signed by the undercovers, not attributed to him/ anyone from the SDS office

Barr went on to point out the word “mischief” appears in this one, a word that Creamer's used several times today already

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

Copies of minutes from VSC meetings held in December 1968, both with redacted content.

@MetPolice These reports come from inside the working committee of the VSC – Creamer agreed that traditional SB methods would not have resulted in getting this kind of internal information.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Creamer and Dixon have both signed this one. He admits' it's more like his work.
Creamer says these show that the groups doing the mischief were Maoists, “not my anarchists” (!)

@MetPolice He wanted to show which groups were likely to cause trouble, and had a personal interest in this.
It describes Mr Manchanda as unlikely to exclude anyone from his groups for aggressiveness or violence at demos.

@MetPolice He went on to say that Manchanda offered the “ultimate in revolutionary activity”

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Next we saw a report from August 1968. It details internal divisions between different groups with differing tactics for the forthcoming demo, and suggestions of potential targets along the route.

@MetPolice It's signed by Dixon and countersigned by Arthur Cunningham.

Did Creamer write this for Dixon?
No, Dixon wrote this one himself

@MetPolice Another doc, from a week later:
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

The IMG are alleged to be "retreating from a violent stance".

There's more info about the political leanings of members of this liason committee and about the different branches

@MetPolice Creamer says they made these progress reports very regularly – every week or so – and they were mostly due to Dixon and his sources.

@MetPolice We saw another from this series:
ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

Creamer says he wasn't privy to this kind of detail about the highest levels of the VSC, but offers some theories about the sources

@MetPolice What was his input?
He often tried to “tone it down” - he didn't want the SDS reports to “cause alarm” - he says they had to tread a careful line.

He would sometimes pressurise Conrad to amend reports, but also said that he did not interfere “between Conrad and the staff”

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
This report contains a reference to 400 people travelling down from Scotland, including 160 Glaswegians who were being advised to wear crash helmets, and "urged to bring ball bearings, fireworks, hat pins and banner poles for use as weapons"

@MetPolice Does he remember this?
He says this info must have come from the Special Branches in Scotland.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/m… the next telegram was sent by
Creamer to the Chief Superintendent on the day - having received this information at the office - about 20 Maoists meeting at the Embankment to leaflet
The constable's name has been redacted, but wasn't an SDS officer.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…
The next document was a telegram sent that evening.
It mentions “hooliganism” being committed by a large breakaway group of demonstrators, who have been joined by the IMG and other VSC elements, and are confronting the police.

@MetPolice He says his part in it was simply to pass on the info.

Barr: Yes. Presumably you'd have remembered if you'd found yourself in Grosvenor Square with hundreds of violent Glaswegians and/or Liverpudlians?

@MetPolice Creamer says he was “disappointed” to miss all the action – he was stuck in the Yard throughout that day.

@MetPolice Do you know if Dixon went to the Home Office or met the Home Secretary in relation to the October demo?
No, I don't know
I didn't need to know

@MetPolice Do you know if Dixon ever received any legal advice about the #spycops operation?

“I'm not sure.
Well, I'm pretty certain he didn't – and it wasn't in his nature.
He saw this as a challenge, and he didn't want to be inhibited by scruples that other people had...”

@MetPolice Did undercover officers make a big difference to the events of October 1968?

There was a lot of public opposition to the War in Vietnam, a lot of people attended public meetings and were interested in demonstrating their opposition.

@MetPolice Creamer admitted it was “extravagant” to send an undercover into very small meetings (or 6 or 7 people) – it was reassuring to learn that there wasn't much threat – so it was worth going to find that out.
Used a lot of police resources - but you couldn't criticise anybody for it

@MetPolice In Creamer's statement he says he gave the undercovers “fatherly advice” about not taking drugs.

Barr: you also referred to “mischief” and “illnesses”....
What were you referring to?

@MetPolice The mischief?
Flyposting
Painting on walls
That sort of thing
Not terrible but better not do it
He says he didn't want them to get arrested

@MetPolice Drugs were fairly novel, but “pot was common amongst anarchist people”
Asked about this, Creamer made references to people “injecting themselves with heroin”

@MetPolice He claimed the illness he was thinking of was Hepatitis B “”which you can get if you mix with drug users”

He denied that he meant sexually transmitted infections. "I never gave that a thought"

@MetPolice He went on to talk about “flirting” and “fellows who are presentable and attractive in themselves, they would get attention from women, but it's nonsense to sleep with them”.

He can't imagine any of them would have done so

@MetPolice He says he thought the SDS would pack up after the Vietnam demo.

Barr: do you think it should have been?

Creamer: Yes

@MetPolice He went on to say that they could have reviewed what the unit did, and picked out “the good bits” - he was surprised that it continued after that demo – he says he didn't have much to do with it after that.

@MetPolice He recalled one conversation with one of the #spycops after leaving, but says he wasn't much of “an enthusiast” for it.

@MetPolice We heard about Fergusson Smith and his wartime experiences contributing to his security mindset. Creamer recalled chatting with him, and hearing that knowledge of the #spycops “wouldn't come out”, ever.

@MetPolice He says this may have given the officers a kind of 'carte blanche' – the idea that they could do whatever they wanted as it would never ever come to light.

@MetPolice “It was a lark in many ways, it was an adventure”
Creamer reminisced.

“It was an experiment to see if it could be done”

@MetPolice After leaving the SDS and moving back into wider Special Branch, did he compile threat assessments for A8?
Yes

@MetPolice It's a bit thorny, they were a bit snooty...
if it wasn't a group they were involved in, they couldn't tell you more than anyone else.
Despite the name, the SDS didn't do what they should have done, and made the assessments themselves.

@MetPolice He claims that if he'd been in the unit, he would've done this, and was disappointed in them. But “I didn't dare ask what they were up to”

He said that after leaving the unit, he wouldn't have gone into their office, he didn't interfere with them at all.

@MetPolice How helpful was the SDS intelligence in compiling threat assessments for A8?

In my time, not great, but maybe it got better.

@MetPolice No I didn't think what they had to offer... could have been a lot better... maybe the groups who demonstrated weren't of interest to them”
e.g. students from London Polytechnic would demonstrate spontaneously.

“I don't want to knock them in any way, but that's the way it was”

@MetPolice We saw this report

ucpi.org.uk/publications/m…
a report about the Troops Out Movement - dated July 1975

At the time they were "at loggerheads" with some other activists, says Barr...

@MetPolice One of the #spycops (using the cover name 'Rick Gibson') was present at this meeting.
The report is signed by a CI and a CS - would that signature indicate to you that this intelligence came from the SDS?
Yes, because it's signed by a Chief Inspector rather than a Constable

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Another report about the Troops Out Movement, dated March 1976

It's signed by Geoffrey Craft. Did you know he was part of the SDS?
Yes

@MetPolice So you would've known this came from the SDS?

'Rick Gibson' was involved in the infighting within the Troops Out Movement.

If you'd known that, would you have been concerned?

@MetPolice Instead of answering the question, Creamer points out that it says Chief Superintendent by his name. He says he remembers clearly <for a change?!> that he had nothing to do with the TOM.

@MetPolice Back to the question... would you have been concerned that Rick had assumed high office within the group?
Creamer: Even if I had known I wouldn't have interfered in what the SDS was doing.
And it might be related to the Irish situation...

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

This one relates to a meeting with the Security Services in March 1978 attended by Creamer and Ray Wilson.
He remembers going - says Ray took him in case there were questions about anarchism, but doesn't remember the conversation

@MetPolice Creamer said C squad could veto things but didn't.

Can he tell us anything about C Squad passing on requests from Security Services to the SDS?
No, I was just an operative then – the admin was being done by Ray Wilson.

@MetPolice “Anything from the Security Service was treated with great..alacrity”
says Creamer.

“I'm not saying they were our supervisors but they were on a level higher than us, and you know, we should do what they want really”.

@MetPolice Did you ever sit on the Industrial Desk?
No, never.

We then stopped for a break.

@MetPolice There were no more questions from Barr.

Mitting thanked Creamer for his evidence, and the #spycopsinquiry finished for the day.

#spycops

@MetPolice @threadreaderapp unroll